The Wrong Argument

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

Does anyone believe this is a persuasive argument about the Florida/Michigan situation?

[T]he main obstacle to a satisfactory resolution of the Florida/Michigan situation is that Clinton continues to be in the race. . . . Only the fact that Hillary Clinton is trying to use the seating of the improperly selected delegates to actually overturn the results of the legitimate nominating process is creating a crisis situation that threatens Democratic prospects in the fall.

(Emphasis supplied.) Yet again an elitist blogger tells us that the problem is that Florida and Michigan Dems just do not understand what he understands. In the process he labels enfranchising the voters of Michigan and Florida as "overturning the results of the legitimate nominating process." Whoa. I can tell you from my personal encounters with Florida Dems (I am in Florida a good deal now) that they would deeply resent what they would perceive as ignorance from this elitist blogger. I urge Obama supporters to steer clear of this argument. Adopting this argument would be digging the hole even deeper.

< Obama Releases Tax Returns, A Pittance for Charity | Clinton On Wright >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Yglesias (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Andy08 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 03:46:23 PM EST
    must have failed Logic 101.

    To be honest (none / 0) (#73)
    by Steve M on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:37:59 PM EST
    while I've been disappointed in Matt for failing to offer anything more than the most vapid anti-Hillary commentary possible throughout this primary, it was this post in particular that finally made me say "shove it" and just delete his blog off my bookmarks for good.  In other words, the Daily Kos treatment.

    I can handle all sorts of alternative viewpoints, but I've reached my maximum level of tolerance for the sort of person who thinks Hillary Clinton is history's greatest monster.  I can always tune in to Rush Limbaugh if I start to miss that sort of attitude, and I have too many blogs bookmarked already.


    We will give you the cake (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by TalkRight on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 03:47:10 PM EST
    only when you promise you cannot eat it.

    We will seat FL/MI delegates (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by TalkRight on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 03:48:10 PM EST
    only when they won't make any difference

    ha, even better.. (5.00 / 5) (#13)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 03:58:06 PM EST
    We will seat the FL/MI delegates only when it is safe for Obama, regardless of the intent of the voters. We will be able to do this when we have sufficiently propaganized the point that it is Hillary Clinton's continuing candidacy that is destroying the democratic party.

    New England Patriots: (none / 0) (#110)
    by lambert on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:40:02 PM EST
    "The only obstacle to the successful resolution of the New York Giants situation is that the game is not yet over."

    No. (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 03:47:25 PM EST

    Then Dig! Dig! Dig! (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by goldberry on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 03:47:35 PM EST
    As a Hillary supporter, I favor stirring up righteous indignation among the Floridians.  The more you insult them, the madder they get, the more likely they are going to demand Howard's scalp and crucify Obama.  
    You know, for all of your supposed advocacy of Obama, BTD, you can't really say with a straight face that he is a better politician.  This is a no win for him.  He should have settled it and gone with the good will.  He would have been much better off by now.  So, either his judgment isn't as good as he says it is or he was taking some bad advice.  Neither instance points to good political skills.  Schmoozing isn't the same as politicking.  Schmoozing he does very well.  But it only gets you so far.  

    I think he is a better pol (none / 0) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 03:54:54 PM EST
    But more importantly, I KNOW the Media lovbes him and hates Clinton. And where the differences on policy are nonexistent, where both candidaytes leave a lot to be desired in terms of political style, I am left with one decisive criteria - who do I think has a better chance to win - I believe Obama has the better chance.

    I have written why too many times to count now.


    I have to post this cartoon for you. (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by ghost2 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 03:59:02 PM EST
    A beautiful theory destroyed by ugly facts (5.00 / 6) (#21)
    by goldberry on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:02:55 PM EST
    The best side effect of the Clinton candidacy is that she's getting tons of negative press and voters are voting for her anyway.  If she were just another first lady and not as tough, tenacious and energetic as she apparently is (and now everyone can see it), she would have been out months ago.  She could have never survived this far.  Gary Hart couldn't.  Howard Dean couldn't.  Michael Dukakis?  Uh-uh.  But Hillary takes a licking and keeps on ticking.  She is driving the pundits crazy and if she wins the nomination, a lot of them will just have to give up in frustration.  Because while McCain is a media darling, he's still a Republican and not a very nice man.  
    And the Republicans I talked to in PA who re-registered as Democrats yesterday know this.  If Hillary wins, she could set the media back 20 years.  If Obama wins the nomination, they just keep on trucking and he doesn't stand a chance.  

    Yet another illustration today of the (5.00 / 0) (#59)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:24:47 PM EST
    difference in how the media treats each.  Obama pre-records a radio interivew in which he yet again talks about Rev. Wright.  The interview airs today.  Also today, Hillary Clinton as asked about Rev. Wright.  She says she wouldn't sit and listen to her minister if he made such statements.  But, media is condemning Clinton for prolonging the Wright issue.  It ain't fair, I tell ya.

    when you have to keep explaining it... (none / 0) (#48)
    by diplomatic on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:18:37 PM EST
    maybe it's not the strongest argument.  I predict that if we see McCain vs Obama you will be shocked by how little the media is going to resemble what you see right now. (in favor of Obama)

    Did you happen to read (none / 0) (#53)
    by Boston Boomer on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:22:31 PM EST
    the first comment on that Yglesias post?  The commenter wants a blood vessel to burst in Hillary's brain later today.  Very nice.  I can remember a time when, at least a DK, such a comment would have been hidden.  But that was a long long time ago.

    There are others (5.00 / 0) (#71)
    by DaleA on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:34:37 PM EST
    that are worse. Reading thru the comments makes me want to not vote for Obama even more. Disgusting.

    I assumed that the blood vessel thing was irony (none / 0) (#124)
    by lambert on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:50:42 PM EST
    The Media Hates ALL Democrats (none / 0) (#107)
    by pluege on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:36:51 PM EST
    I disagree that the media "loves" Obama. The Media hates ALL democrats. The media is giving Obama a pass so far because he is not against a republican at the moment. The second that condition changes, they will smear him as bad or worse than any democrat including HRC.

    Obama isn't the Manchurian Candidate (none / 0) (#112)
    by blogtopus on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:48:26 PM EST
    He is the Schroedinger Candidate.

    He is/is not a Democrat. That's what confuses the Media (and the Dem voters) so much.

    He is an unknown. He is a cat in a box that is / is not dead. When will we find out what he is?

    Probably Jan 20, 2009. God Help us.


    A counter-argument (none / 0) (#125)
    by lambert on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:52:04 PM EST
    If Hillary wins her way through with no help from the Village, she won't owe them anything.

    Can the same be said of the two others?


    No one can have a legit nomination (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by athyrio on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 03:50:00 PM EST
    until the Florida and Michigan are seated in time to make a difference. Waiting and seating them at the convention is nothing but window dressing and means nothing and the voters in those states know that already. To do otherwise would be a mockery of Democracy.

    I am not even in Florida or Michegan (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by vigkat on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 03:52:20 PM EST
    And I resent the elitist nature of this characterization, which blatantly  misrepresents the facts and reality of the situation.  Worst of all, it completely ignores the right of the voters in these two states to have their voices heard.

    So...if Clinton drops out, then (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Anne on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:00:24 PM EST
    the Florida-Michigan situation can be resolved?

    Okay, it's been a long day, so maybe that's why I can't figure out how that would effectively enfranchise those voters.

    I think this might actually be the Obama strategy - when there is no longer anything at stake, then he can argue for the rules committee to seat the delegations.  

    Problem solved, delegates seated.  

    Clearly, my brain is toast.

    I really think (none / 0) (#22)
    by ghost2 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:03:02 PM EST
    they are running out the clock.  When there is no time, his campaign will push (with the help of lap dog media) for caucuses (something like 125 locations in Florida, which was DNC's pathetic offer last summer), and then blame Hillary for wanting to have special treatment.  And the media will use all their megaphone in unison to trash Hillary as much as possible.

    You heard it here first.


    Bingo (none / 0) (#26)
    by ruffian on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:04:51 PM EST
    Yur brain is not toast, that has always been the Dean/DNC and Obama plan.

    Obviously, it was the Clinton strategy too (none / 0) (#64)
    by rebrane on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:26:29 PM EST
    All of the candidates were prepared to embrace the FL and MI delegations once the nominee was agreed upon, despite the pledges they all signed. However, the nominee is not agreed upon yet, so the delegations have not been embraced yet. Which is exactly what Yglesias is saying.

    Hmm (none / 0) (#68)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:29:44 PM EST
    But that ignores the fact that Obama blocked the revotes in Fl and MI.

    It presumes that FL and MI voters are idiots.

    Precisely why it is a bad argument.


    BTD, seriously... (none / 0) (#74)
    by sweetthings on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:39:46 PM EST
    Michigan, maybe, but Florida?

    There was no bigger obstacle to a revote in Florida than Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and she's as firmly in the Clinton camp as anyone can be. You claim that Obama capsized the Michigan revote by having his local surrogates in the legislature oppose it. And yet you don't apply the same logic to Clinton in Florida, where the legislators that opposed the revote effort were overwhelmingly in her camp? Why not?


    Story of Obama's life (none / 0) (#113)
    by blogtopus on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:54:02 PM EST
    He has no problem tilting at windmills and claiming they're dragons.

    He had no problem protesting the war when it was in fashion for his state to do so. When he became liable for his opinions in the Fed Senate, he promptly got in line.

    Now, he has no problem with counting the votes in Florida / Michigan -- WHEN THEY NO LONGER MATTER TO HIM.

    What a tool.


    Excuse me (none / 0) (#114)
    by blogtopus on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:54:47 PM EST
    Sorry, shouldn't have called O-man a tool. That's reserved for Axelrod.

    To Answer Your Question, BTD, (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by AmyinSC on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:01:00 PM EST
    No.  I find that argument to be illogical at best, and reprehensible, at least.  Since WHEN did the citizens of Florida and Michigan essentially become outsiders to the presidential nomination process??  We'll count the votes of US territories toward the nominations, but NOT the votes of FL and MI?  Absolutely preposterous.  

    And it is equally disingenuous to suggest seating them once the monimation is SETTLED, as some have done.  That amounts to the same thing - making their votes meaningless.

    (HOW did the DNC get to this place??  I remember happily supporting the DNC financially when Dean took over - now it will be a cold day before I give money to them again...)

    MI - I can understand, but FL? (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Josey on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:14:56 PM EST
    The DNC enacted rules so that all other states would vote after the first 4.
    Florida falls within that rule - except they moved the primary up a week.
    So technically, they broke the rule, but not the purpose of the rule.
    Or something like that.

    A very good argument (none / 0) (#51)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:21:19 PM EST
    Thank you BTD! (none / 0) (#55)
    by Josey on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:23:29 PM EST
    Elitist (5.00 / 4) (#23)
    by TheRealFrank on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:03:18 PM EST
    I already hated it when the press (and the Obama campaign) poo-pooed Clinton celebrating a win in Florida. While spending basically 2 full newscycles on the Kennedy endorsement.

    So, a record number in the 3rd largest state turn out, and vote for you by a large majority. You're not supposed to do anything with that, because, well, it doesn't count. The endorsement of 850,000 voters is not important. But the endorsement by (a) member(s) of a political dynasty is something that needs to be reported on for 48 hours.

    Now that's elitist.

    I spend ALL of my time in Florida (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by macwiz12 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:23:26 PM EST
    And I can say for certain, Florida democrats are extremely mad about this issue.

    The primary date was set by the Florida republican party, Florida democrats had no choice. While it is true that the democrats in the Florida legislature did vote yes on the final bill, it was to vote yes on another, essential, provision in the bill: the mandating of a paper trail for the 2008 ballots. While most people know about 2000, few outside Florida are familiar with the missing votes in one Florida race for the US House in 2006. The lack of a paper trail made a recount impossible. Even with the changed primary date, Florida's democratic state representatives still had to vote for the paper trail.

    Like many Florida democrats, I will contribute nothing to the national democratic party until they figure out how to seat our delegates with delegate counts that reflect the votes of Florida's citizens in either the January primary or a new primary. I also know a lot of people who will not vote for the democratic candidate if their votes are not counted. As I have said in the past, I did not vote for either Obama or Clinton in the primary and am still undecided as to which I prefer. I will say that the vindictive nature of many anti-Clinton posts I have read have read on various sites (some so nasty that I no longer read those sites) make me wonder about some of the Obama supporters.

    What does it say about Michiganders (none / 0) (#72)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:35:30 PM EST
    (full and part time) that they are so much more tepid about demanding either a re-vote or that the original vote count and those delegates be seated?  

    Who's saying (5.00 / 0) (#83)
    by dskinner3 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:46:53 PM EST
    we're tepid? If Obama hadn't objected to a revote, the state legislature would have gotten the ball rolling. He's the one keeping the lid on us.

    I just haven't seen as many comments from (none / 0) (#96)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:58:08 PM EST
    unhappy Michiganders here as I have from Floridians.

    Midwesterners aren't mouthy (none / 0) (#99)
    by Cream City on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:12:42 PM EST
    but we hold silent grudges for a looooong time.

    The Dem Party will suffer for this far more than the Michiganders or Floridians.  You read it here first.


    Oh I certainly knew that. Grew up (none / 0) (#106)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:35:44 PM EST
    in the Midwest.

    Perhaps it is because Michigan (none / 0) (#102)
    by macwiz12 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:25:47 PM EST
    has a house of representatives that has a majority of democrats. It also has a democratic governor. Both houses of the Florida legislature and the governor are in republican hands.

    The elected democrats of Michigan could have prevented the problem, the elected democrats of Florida could not.


    Not sure your reply responds to my (none / 0) (#108)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:37:05 PM EST
    comment though.  No matter who is at fault, FL voters seem much more vocal here about their primary votes not counting than do MI voters.  Maybe more Floridians read Talk Left?  

    Could you link me to somewhere ... (none / 0) (#128)
    by Meteor Blades on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:50:13 PM EST
    ...showing how the Clinton team IN MICHIGAN stood on a Michigan revote?

    I think the main obstacle (5.00 / 4) (#56)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:24:02 PM EST
    is that <snark> Obama is still in the race.  Were he not in the race he would not block enfranchisement of MI/FL.

    So he should drop out.

    Can I be an A-list blogger now?

    This is equivalent to the 50-50 split argument (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by tandem5 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:39:49 PM EST
    which is that the people of FL and MI can be heard so long as their votes don't have any impact on the race - ah democracy.

    Just a reminder of what's at stake here (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:46:04 PM EST
    The first black to be nominate by either party for president is likely to win that nomination because two large states were removed from the process.

    It's not my job to tell anyone what that looks like.

    And I realize this might cross the lines of polite discourse on this blog (this similiar thought has been deleted before), but this is very much what's at stake here.

    I can take the word "black" out of the sentence above to make the statement less polarizing but that is the historical significance.

    This isn't snark... (2.00 / 1) (#14)
    by proseandpromise on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 03:58:22 PM EST
    Was there a diary prior to Obama looking like a serious challenger, about the FL/MI deal.  Back when the candidates agreed to not campaign, and all but Hillary took their names off of the ballot in Michigan.  

    The reason I don't like the "you'll disenfranchise the voters" line is because, to me, it seems like it is just politics but it is being wrapped in ethics or some higher cause.  This is the same way of arguing that told me I hated the troops because I didn't support the war in Iraq.  Do you know what I'm saying?  I'm not trying to play "gotcha" or anything, but I don't like hearing that we must do something that benefits one candidate over another because of "the voters, the voters" when no one was making that high minded argument (at least that I can tell) back when the decision was made.  

    It just seems dishonest.

    counting votes (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by ghost2 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:00:32 PM EST
    always benefits one  candidate over the another.  So does democracy.

    You... (none / 0) (#28)
    by proseandpromise on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:06:07 PM EST
    didn't answer my question.  You just did more of what I am concerned about - pretended like somehow this is about whether or not I favor democracy.  I am sick of that kind of rhetoric.  I had quite enough from Bush and company.

    One warning and one warning only (none / 0) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:07:04 PM EST
    Your comment is not allowed here.  Do it again, and you will be suspended with a banning recommendation.

    Why isn't my comment allowed? (none / 0) (#39)
    by proseandpromise on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:10:14 PM EST
    I honestly don't understand.  I"m not trying to spam or snark.  I'm trying to get an honest answer from someone.  I did get one about a senator, but not about bloggers.

    Read the rtules (none / 0) (#43)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:12:36 PM EST
    and comm back tomorrow.

    Right now you need to respect my ruling as an Admin and stop commenting here for the day. Come back tomorrow.


    It is the standard line now (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:06:10 PM EST
    from some Obama supporters that if Clinton did not argue for it ante, then any objections from anyone (for the record, people like me and Jerome Armstrong and ironically, Markos Moulitsas, wrote a good deal about Florida and Michigan at the time - and I have been on a revote crusade since early February) arer "dishonest."

    I find such arguments so absurd and insulting that I choose not to engage commenters who provide them.

    Enjoy your visit at Talk Left. Good afternoon to you sir.


    How is what I'm saying insulting? (none / 0) (#37)
    by proseandpromise on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:09:12 PM EST
    I just asked for you to show me where those statements are.  I want to know that I'm hearing honest opinion, and not manipulation.  Let's see, I've been accused of not supporting (or perhaps just not understanding) democracy and now of being insulting, and I'm being dismissed.  This is like anti-Iraq war 2004 all over again.

    You are suspended (none / 0) (#41)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:10:44 PM EST
    Come back tomorrow and become familiar with the commenting rules please.

    Heh (none / 0) (#78)
    by Steve M on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:40:56 PM EST
    It reminds me of being a 1L, when I was convinced that every single case could be resolved through some type of estoppel argument.

    If you pander to the early states in a primary by biting your lip on a certain claim, then by gosh, an estoppel prevents you from ever making the argument in the future!


    Sen Bill Nelson was making this argument (none / 0) (#25)
    by ruffian on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:04:09 PM EST
    since the beginning. You can say it was because he is a Clinton supporter, bu since it is the only issue I have ever seen him get excited about, I think he really was fighting for the voters in his state.

    I like to give him kudos when they are due, because I disagree with him so often!


    Good... (none / 0) (#33)
    by proseandpromise on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:07:27 PM EST
    then I will listen to him.  But all of the people on this site that act like Obama supporters hate democracy?  I want to see a list of their comments, diaries, and actions taken to preserve democracy back before Iowa.

    You are suspended from commenting (none / 0) (#38)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:10:08 PM EST
    Do not comment any further today.

    Try and follow the rules if you choose to return tomorrow.


    The real problem (none / 0) (#77)
    by dskinner3 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:40:08 PM EST
    is that "the voters" didn't have a say in the movement of the primary. It was the MDP. Many called and tried to persuade them to keep the date and fight for a change in the schedule for 2012. I shouldn't have to pay the price of losing my voice in the process simply because I have idiots for party leaders.

    My solution:

    1. Strip MDP members of superdelegate status.
    2. DNC, MDP, or private donors fund 2nd primary (closed)
    3. Fight for national primary or 4 regional primaries for next election cycle.

    It's more than a line (none / 0) (#86)
    by Step Beyond on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:54:50 PM EST
    I've been making that "high minded" argument all along.

    from DK

    You don't take away someone's right to vote because other people broke a rule.

    by Step Beyond on Sat Sep 01, 2007 at 05:12:06 PM EDT

    also from DK because I like the quote

    Please try and understand the difference between the FDP, the Florida legislature and the Florida voters. One agreed to the rules. One violated the rules. And the other got screwed.

    by Step Beyond on Tue Oct 09, 2007 at 04:34:13 PM EDT

    from MyDD

    Repubs are talking about taking away half of the delegates. Meaning their votes will still count. Had the DNC taken a portion (1/2, 3/4, a number less than all) then I wouldn't be refusing to vote Dem in the general.

    by Step Beyond on Sat Sep 01, 2007 at 06:42:59 PM EST

    Feel free to search both those sites as I have other ranting posts about this very matter.


    Thanks (none / 0) (#131)
    by proseandpromise on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 07:15:38 AM EST
    See, this is all I was looking for.  I respect your opinion.  Thank you.

    I stopped reading after (none / 0) (#116)
    by echinopsia on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:09:44 PM EST
    "all but Hillary" because if you start with that falsehood that has been corrected here and elsewhere a thousand times, I'm not interested in reading the rest of your post.

    I'm finding there are a lot of these little things that save me a lot of time reading comments.


    Snark, snark (1.00 / 1) (#45)
    by dwoodard on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:14:58 PM EST
    Well, of course the argument is wrong; it was put forth by one of those terrible "elitist bloggers."  Let's lock 'em all up.  Nasty creatures.  The rules, as you say, are the rules.  The MI and FL delegations are barred by the rules.  The delegations cannot be used by anybody for any purpose.  Period.  Hillary was fine with this when she didn't think she would need the delegates; I guess that makes her an "elitist," too.  It is obviously true; if she were out of the race, the delegations would be seated.  But as long as she needs to undo the rules and seat these delegations, they will not be seated.  Saying so makes me an elitist, too.  Oh well, go ahead.  Take your shots.

    Well (none / 0) (#49)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:20:31 PM EST
    I think you missed the point of the blogger's post myself.

    Your comment is a nonsequitor imo.


    If you want the delegates seated (none / 0) (#58)
    by rilkefan on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:24:38 PM EST
    how about demanding Obama drop out?

    Obama should want to win in as transparent and democratic a way as possible.  Unfortunately his campaign is not trying to accomplish that when it rejects counting FL and MI, which is provided for in several ways under the rules.


    meh (none / 0) (#70)
    by dskinner3 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:34:10 PM EST
    Obama objecting to a revote in MI was the main reason the state legislature didn't act before adjourning. If he truly wanted to get a clean nomination, he'd be working for a solution to have the votes of MI and FL count, and not any of this 50/50 garbage being thrown about.

    it isn't just elite bloggers (1.00 / 1) (#121)
    by TheRefugee on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:27:30 PM EST
    that are trying to convince people that Obama IS the nominee regardless of anything Hillary can do.  Chuck Todd constantly being referred to as "an expert" and then saying, she would have to "throw the proverbial sink".  I like this Chuck Todd statement..."I've spoken to some superdelegates and SOME are concerned with the tone of the campaign...that HILLARY is...negative" (paraphrased from tonights Countdown.

    I don't understand the problem with honesty.  The point of the media is to inform the public of reality and then let voters base their decisions on reality and not manufactured talking points.  The headline on Countdown for talking point 1?  Clinton's Tonya Harding Moment!  Some ahole decided to compare Clinton's chances as "she'd have to kneecap (Obama).  

    In 2004 (none / 0) (#7)
    by rebrane on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 03:50:36 PM EST
    Edwards won 10% of the vote in Florida, which earned him 3 delegates, fair and square. Those three delegates then went to the convention and voted for John Kerry for the Presidential nominee, and in doing so, obviously disenfranchised Florida voters. Right?

    Not really (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by ruffian on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:00:33 PM EST
    When you vote in a primary you realize that if your candidate is no longer in the race by the time of the convention the delegates may jump to the nominee for the sake of party unity.

    If the FL and MI delegates are seated as currently constituted they too will have that option at the convention. I believe Obama is pretty clearly the probable winner right now, as his supporters keep saying he is. He could agree to seat them right now. The odds are overwhelming that he will win even with them seated, and he could look like the good guy starting today.  Why he does not do it is a mystery.


    I'd say (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Boston Boomer on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:26:27 PM EST
    Obama's reason is obvious.  He's afraid of the voters in PA, WV, IN, etc.  He is not confident of winning or he wouldn't be going negative and he would be willing to count the MI and FL delegates.  

    overwhelming even with them seated? (none / 0) (#46)
    by diplomatic on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:15:25 PM EST
    hardly.  Clinton would likely end up with the popular vote lead if that were the case so it's hardly overwhelming in Obama's favor.

    Popular vote lead (none / 0) (#57)
    by ruffian on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:24:11 PM EST
    is only a metric that can be used to influence the superdelegates. He would still have a big enough pledged delegate lead, and the superdelegates would be so happy to have this FL/MI thing settled that they would give him enough credit for that to offset whatever they think about the popular vote totals.

    He could call it (none / 0) (#65)
    by ruffian on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:26:51 PM EST
    The Audacity of the High Road.

    and I say all this as a Clinton partisan.  I should stop giving Obama my ideas!


    there are additional metrics (none / 0) (#66)
    by diplomatic on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:28:50 PM EST
    you will see them play out in the coming months.

    Since neither of us know what hundreds of superdelegates are privately thinking or what metric they plan to value the most, we must simply wait before we declare anyone's chances as overwhelming in what is essentially a very tight race.


    Um (none / 0) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 03:52:48 PM EST

    Where do folks come up with these things?


    Huh? (none / 0) (#12)
    by cmugirl on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 03:57:47 PM EST
    Kerry was the clear nominee by the convention and Edwards was his running mate. I know you are trying to make a point, but it doesn't make sense - the delegates in a way DID vote for Edwards. (or he released them).

    By the time the convention rolls around (none / 0) (#24)
    by rebrane on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:04:05 PM EST
    there will be a clear nominee, and in all likelihood, Florida's delegation will be seated and will vote unanimously for that nominee, regardless of the results of Florida's primary. What I don't understand is why arriving at this outcome, the same as the eventual outcome of every convention since 1980, now represents the disenfranchisement of Florida voters and a hopelessly elitist opinion.

    Because they don't want (none / 0) (#42)
    by eric on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:10:50 PM EST
    to be a rubber stamp.  Their votes, if counted, would have a material effect on this contest.  If there is a presumtive nominee before the convention, then basically every state's delegates will vote for that nominee.  But since there is a contest here, the disenfranchisement is material.

    FYI (none / 0) (#105)
    by Step Beyond on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:30:40 PM EST
    Edwards dropped prior to the Florida primary that year and endorsed Kerry.

    Is this not the same elitist blogger (none / 0) (#11)
    by andgarden on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 03:55:44 PM EST
    who had the problem last time?

    Heh (none / 0) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:07:19 PM EST

    Please distinguish (none / 0) (#40)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:10:28 PM EST
    an "elitist blogger" from an "A-list blogger."

    This like hearing about Tweety et al.


    Sorry, I started laughing (none / 0) (#16)
    by waldenpond on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 03:59:59 PM EST
    as soon as I read... The .. main obstacle is that Clinton continues to be in the race.

    I did go read the item, but then I read the comments.. one wished a blood vessel would burst in Clinton's brain.  OK, so I started laughing again.

    No one is making the case for Hillary (none / 0) (#27)
    by TalkRight on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:05:06 PM EST
    .. when ever some one talks about the FL/MI re-vote the first reaction is you are tying to do this for Hillary ... FL/MI have been trying to make their case for long.. and since this is getting to be a close contest their voice is getting more traction and it feels like more important than ever before

    interesting, if somewhat cryptic, comments (none / 0) (#32)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:07:25 PM EST
    from Harry in the Las Vegas Review Journal via riverdaughter:

    Question: Do you still think the Democratic race can be resolved before the convention?

    Reid: Easy.

    Q: How is that?

    Reid: It will be done.

    Q: It just will?

    Reid: Yep.

    Q: Magically?

    Reid: No, it will be done. I had a conversation with Governor Dean (Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean) today. Things are being done.

    One thing Reid could do (none / 0) (#47)
    by ruffian on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:15:48 PM EST
    If there is behind the scenes dealing going on, I hope it involves Reid stepping down as majority leader in favor of Clinton. That is as close to a win-win situation as we are going to get out of this thing.

    The Long Defeat (none / 0) (#34)
    by 1jane on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:07:56 PM EST
    The column in today's NYT written by David Brooks is a good summary for anyone uncertain about the meaning of seating the FL and MI delegates. Meanwhile Clinton's likeability factor among Dems likely to vote in PA has fallen from 76% to 68% and Obama's likeability factor is holding steady at 71%. The snipper fib is taking it's toll. When Obama begins his 2 week sweep through PA criss-crossing the state and meeting voters the polls will likely change even more. From the beginning people have made their minds up about Hillary. She's not adding many new voters while Obama continues to draw young voters, Independents and unhappy Republicans. One blog just wrote Clinton will withdraw on May 6....we shall see.

    Well yes (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:09:05 PM EST
    David Brooks is authoritative on so many issues.

    Who will you cite next? Rush Limbaugh?


    How strange (none / 0) (#79)
    by Steve M on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:43:21 PM EST
    People have made up their minds about Hillary in your theory, yet it is her numbers that are moving, not Obama's.  How strange.

    I, for one, have trouble believing that the zillionth iteration of "Hillary Clinton can't be trusted!" is going to have some sort of dramatic effect.  I suppose that if you subscribe to the theory that this primary has been previously free of attacks on Hillary Clinton's character by the Obama campaign, you might feel differently.


    Numbers not moving (none / 0) (#81)
    by rebrane on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:46:06 PM EST
    I know that you've gotta have hope and so forth, but it's not true that anyone's numbers are moving. Check the Gallup tracking poll for the last month. Clinton hasn't been above 48% and hasn't been below 44%. Obama hasn't been above 48% and hasn't been below 44%.

    I think you have it right in the rest of your analysis -- people have made up their minds.


    Not reading numbers (none / 0) (#84)
    by rebrane on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:47:36 PM EST
    Sorry, I was scanning that graph all wrong. Actually, Clinton hasn't been above 49% and hasn't been below 44%, while Obama hasn't been above 50% and hasn't been below 42%. The basic point still remains that the race is static.

    True (none / 0) (#109)
    by nell on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:39:29 PM EST
    but one thing that is interesting is the negatives each candidate has. Hers have been set in stone just above 50 percent and Obama's are now just above 50 percent. It took 15 years of republican attacks to get hers there, and he has reached that point already...I am sure hers swung up and down as the country was getting to know her, but now I think they know her pretty well and most have their opinion set pretty solidly. At least around me, though, I know several people whose opinions of her have improved over the course of this campaign. Obama's volatility is one of the things that scares me most about him in terms of a general election since he is less well known, the public will be more reactionary towards him, and this is evidenced by polling.

    Okay (none / 0) (#85)
    by Steve M on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:52:23 PM EST
    I was responding to a post that claimed the numbers were moving.  I didn't claim to have done any independent research, I just though the post was illogical.

    I find it strange too. If people's (none / 0) (#82)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:46:33 PM EST
    opinions of her have been set in stone ever since she came on the national scene, why is she attracting voters?

    Sound like Bush Vs Gore reasoning (none / 0) (#35)
    by tree on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:08:25 PM EST
    to me.

    The real obstacle to the seating of the Florida and Michigan delegates is the Obama campaign's opposition to seating them. The Clinton campaign wants them seated, if the Obama campaign allowed them to be seated, they would be seated. Apparently the only way that the Obama campaign will agree to seat them is if their votes don't prevent him from being the nominee. If they wish to win the nomination they have two choices: they can either rack up enough votes to win the convention even if the two delegations are seated, or they can refuse to seat them.  

    It is (5.00 / 5) (#52)
    by eric on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:22:04 PM EST
    Bush v. Gore reasoning.  Remember how Bush immediately pushed the narrative that Gore should quit because he had (for what it was worth) a lead in Florida?  Remember the theme that was created whereby Gore should concede "for the good of the country", he shouldn't be a "sore loser", he is just "standing in the way of the inevitable", etc.?  All because the votes had been counted only enough to put Bush in the lead.  If the process was carried out to its full conclusion, we would have Gore instead.

    It's the same thing.  The process isn't complete in this nomination process.  The arguments that Hillary should just quit because she is standing in the way and hurting the party are just as wrong as Bush's were in 2000.


    It is the Democratic glass ceiling (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by ineedalife on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:26:14 PM EST
    It is funning how societal biases work into all levels of things. I am sure Dean and his cronies were not conciously designing this outcome but it has worked out that the female candidate has to be at least two large states better than the male candidate to win. Just saying.

    Actually, Bush v. Gore says (none / 0) (#87)
    by badger on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:58:20 PM EST
    The right to vote is protected in more than the initial allocation of the franchise. Equal protection applies as well to the manner of its exercise. Having once granted the right to vote on equal terms, the State may not, by later arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one person's vote over that of another. See, e.g., Harper v. Virginia Bd. of Elections, 383 U.S. 663, 665 (1966) ("[O]nce the franchise is granted to the electorate, lines may not be drawn which are inconsistent with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment"). It must be remembered that "the right of suffrage can be denied by a debasement or dilution of the weight of a citizen's vote just as effectively as by wholly prohibiting the free exercise of the franchise." Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 555 (1964).


    An early case in our one person, one vote jurisprudence arose when a State accorded arbitrary and disparate treatment to voters in its different counties. Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368 (1963). The Court found a constitutional violation. We relied on these principles in the context of the Presidential selection process in Moore v. Ogilvie, 394 U.S. 814 (1969), where we invalidated a county-based procedure that diluted the influence of citizens in larger counties in the nominating process. There we observed that "[t]he idea that one group can be granted greater voting strength than another is hostile to the one man, one vote basis of our representative government." Id., at 819.

    Even that decision, as anti-democratic as it was, would see MI and FL as disenfranchisement.


    Scuse me, IANAL (none / 0) (#119)
    by echinopsia on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:19:16 PM EST
    But wasn't it a provision/condition - don't know the legal term - of the Bush v Gore SC decision that the decision could not be used to decide future cases?

    Just pointing out that (none / 0) (#129)
    by badger on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:52:06 PM EST
    even a decision as awful as Bush v. Gore recognizes the basic principles of voter rights, which seems to escape the grasp of the Obama campaign and his supporters.

    Matt doesn't get it (none / 0) (#60)
    by ClassicLib on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:25:20 PM EST
    It'd be nice if someone would at least look at the rules. The only penalty for holding a primary prior to Feb 5 is that 50% of the delegates awarded should be seated rather than all of them. The rules say nothing about the primary not counting or that the popular votes shouldn't count. The 50% rule can be appealed so that all the delegates are seated since in FL, the Dems in the state legislature tried their best to abide by the rules but were overruled by the Repubs.

    There is no way in hell the Dems should be punished for the actions of the Repubs!

    Say what? (none / 0) (#61)
    by Grey on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:26:09 PM EST
    So, in his eyes, actual voting is now somehow equal to "overturning the results of the legitimate nominating process."

    Why, that's almost revolutionary!

    Changing the rules (1.00 / 1) (#75)
    by rebrane on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:39:47 PM EST
    This reminds me of the post on the Dennis Kucinich web site where they listed all the web polls Dennis had won as proof that Dennis was the true choice of Democrats across America.

    Point being, just because it's called a vote doesn't mean it's part of the legitimate nominating process. I could hold a primary in my living room, but if it's not authorized by the DNC, I have no business calling it part of the legitimate nominating process.

    It was stupid of the DNC to strip those states of their votes, but changing the rules while the game is being played is just compounding the error.


    Stupid is as Stupid Does (1.00 / 1) (#94)
    by pluege on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:44:45 PM EST
    It was stupid of bush to invade Iraq in 2003, but lets not withdraw US troops because that would be making a change to the original mistake.

    Simple question (none / 0) (#88)
    by Step Beyond on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:00:51 PM EST
    What rule change?

    Simple answer (none / 0) (#91)
    by rebrane on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:21:00 PM EST
    The rule (as I said, a stupid and destructive one) that Florida and Michigan were not a part of the "legitimate nominating process."

    Sorry, there is no such rule (none / 0) (#95)
    by tree on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:45:34 PM EST
    Where is this rule? (none / 0) (#101)
    by Step Beyond on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:17:33 PM EST
    I haven't seen that rule.

    Now there was a ruling by the Rules & Bylaws Committee to remove delegates. But per the rules, they can be reinstated. And per the rules, another voting plan could be submitted and approved (Dean was encouraging that earlier). And of course, per the rules the ruling can be appealed (which Ausman is doing now).

    You want to say this is changing the rules. It isn't. This is working within the rules as they stand. There is no rule that states that there is no way that Florida and Michigan are part of the "legitimate nominating process." The rules lay out a myriad of ways they can.

    It's like being sentenced for a crime. You broke a rule. Your sentence is a ruling. And the rules allow methods for appealing your sentence. In no way is appealing the sentence violating a rule.


    There has been no rule change (none / 0) (#117)
    by Grey on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:11:42 PM EST
    And the DNC was fine with re-votes.  They even approved Michigan's plan.  You know, the one Obama didn't like.

    All this has been done before, btw.  Ask Delaware.


    Actually (none / 0) (#67)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:29:32 PM EST
    I think George W. Bush copyrighted the theory in 2000.

    I don't know if MY (none / 0) (#89)
    by digdugboy on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:05:44 PM EST
    is posting this as an argument why Clinton should concede as much as he's posting it as one salutary result of a concession.

    I think he's accurate in that too, but only to the extent that the Clinton campaign doesn't continue to whip up public sentiment about disenfranchisement of MI and FL voters. Their primary votes don't count because they broke DNC rules, not because Obama blocked a new vote.

    If either Florida or MI proposed a new vote that was consistent with DNC rules, and the DNC rejected it, then the voters might have a legitimate gripe.

    If Clinton concedes and says something about how the result might have been different had Florida and Michigan voted, then the issue persists. If she concedes and says nothing about Florida and Michigan, then maybe (as Yglesias suggests) those voters will accept that the outcome would not have been different if their votes hadn't violated DNC rules.

    It's an outrage that Obama is NOT (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by Cream City on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:26:12 PM EST
    "whipping up public sentiment" about votes not counting.  Another sign, to me, that he is not about the Dems or even about democracy.  He's about Obama.

    Well, you know what they say. (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by echinopsia on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:30:23 PM EST
    Hillary will do anything to win.

    But Obama will do anything to win except count people's votes.


    Objection! (none / 0) (#90)
    by clapclappointpoint on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:17:56 PM EST
    Hearsay--"Whoa. I can tell you from my personal encounters with Florida Dems (I am in Florida a good deal now) that they would deeply resent what they would perceive as ignorance from this elitist blogger"

    I'm sure you talked to a couple of folks down there.  I'm also sure that you can't extrapolate that to the Dem FL electorate.

    Objection, also, to using the disgusting Republican buzz word of "elitism" that serves no purpose in the discussion.

    Lastly, if you think that MI or FL elections were fair, then you could probably get a job as an election official in Cuba or Iran.  It's unfortunate that we couldn't hold a fair election in those places, but that is the fault of the respect legislative bodies of those states.

    Wingnut Arrogant (none / 0) (#92)
    by pluege on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:37:40 PM EST
    that is stupefying arrogance worthy of the most arrogant wingnut.

    Do the elitist bloggers know they're being wingnut arrogant or are they so infatuated with themselves that they don't even know they're doing it?

    The primary has been startling in regards to revelations of the true nature of the Obama bloggers and the Obama pundits of MSNBC.

    Great (none / 0) (#97)
    by cmugirl on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:00:03 PM EST
    So when those states go big time for McCain, we can all say,  "well they did it to themselves?"

    I disagree (none / 0) (#98)
    by Step Beyond on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:08:11 PM EST
    You can not control what others do but you have absolute control over your reaction to it. So yes the Florida legislature moved up the primary, but the DNC had full control over their what they did in response.

    The DNC overreacted and decided to punish the Florida voters by disenfranchising them. It wasn't required they do that. It certainly wasn't their only choice.

    The Florida legislatures broke a rules. But the DNC disenfranchised the voters.

    Agreed (none / 0) (#111)
    by blogtopus on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:44:28 PM EST
    And now the Super D's will have to bail out this mess and take the heat that the DNC should rightfully be taking.

    Nobody likes it when the parents get home and tell you to turn off the music, clean up the living room and send your friends home. But that's exactly what the Super D's are intended for; cleaning up the mess that the DNC (and clueless politicians) make.


    Really? I thought the purpose of the ... (none / 0) (#127)
    by Meteor Blades on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:44:39 PM EST
    ...super D's was to keep the mob off the the South Lawn.

    Golden for republicans (none / 0) (#115)
    by TalkRight on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:56:50 PM EST
    if democrats do not seat FL then in all the states where they are in control of the senate they will move up the primary for those state thereby guaranteeing that it would not count for democrats and help suppress democrat votes.

    This makes no sense (none / 0) (#104)
    by stillife on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:28:04 PM EST
    [T]he main obstacle to a satisfactory resolution of the Florida/Michigan situation is that Clinton continues to be in the race.

    It just seems like the tail wagging the dog.  If Clinton were not still in the race, Michigan and Florida would not be an issue.  The primary race would be finished.  

    I'm so sick of this "Surrender, Dorothy!" cr*p.  

    Love (none / 0) (#118)
    by sas on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:12:15 PM EST
    Hillary Clinton!

    She takes whatever they throw at her and comes out standing.  The grit, the tenacity, the strength...admirable.

    One other point, the DNC and their anointed candidate, Obama, get no respect from me.  I really resent having Obama the Unready shoved down my throat.

    So, people like me will turn them on their ear in November, and there are alot of us.

    Democrats rebel!

    Yessir... (none / 0) (#120)
    by alsace on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:24:28 PM EST
    The best way to end yearning for democracy among the masses is to hold the king's coronation.

    OOPs (none / 0) (#123)
    by alsace on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:31:31 PM EST
    I tried and thought I'd failed to post this comment on The Atlantic, so I posted here.  Now it's in both places.  

    Isnt "elite blogger" ... (none / 0) (#126)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 09:21:04 PM EST
    an oxymoron?

    Of course, in the case of Matt, I think we could drop the "oxy."

    Every vote must count... or maybe not (none / 0) (#130)
    by sapienthetero on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:34:58 PM EST
    As an innocent Florida bystander, I find it fascinating to watch the same Democrats who chanted "every vote must count" both four and eight years ago disenfranchising the voters of two large states.  Yes, I understand that these two states broke the rules, but isn't that what being a liberal is all about?  In any event, current events confirm my original impression that the Democrats only wanted to make sure that Gore & Kerry votes were counted.

    Perhaps the most instructive take-away from all this is that the Democrats can't manage their way out of a wet paper bag.  The fact that they couldn't see this coming when they originally announced that they wouldn't seat Michigan & Florida delegates is hilarious.

    In 2004 they managed to lose against an astonishingly unpopular president who should have been impeached for first amendment violations (and still should be, for that matter), trampled our civil liberties and got us mired in another Viet Nam.  Why?  They couldn't find a single candidate slightly to the right of Karl Marx to run against him.

    Now, four years later, they're on the verge of making the exact same mistake.  Republicans are on the ropes, but Clinton's 'scorched-earth' campaign is providing all the ammunition needed for McCain to beat Obama in the general election.  And Obama is the Dem's only hope, since Clinton is so despised among both Republicans and independents that her nomination would virtually guarantee an otherwise improbable McCain victory.

    What Democrats don't understand (or than the Republicans, for that matter) is that we're sick to death of their polarizing political posturing.  Most Americans don't want a socialist state with a motto of "from each according to their ability to give, to each according to their need".  Nor do we want a corporate state in which big business owns the government.  We want statesmen who put the good of the people ahead of their personal political ambitions, and we want a country where everyone is free to succeed or fail under their own steam, without excessive government intrusion.  As long as we're not offered this choice, we'll just continue to vote for whomever we consider to be the lesser of the evils.  And sometimes that will give us two "W's" in a row.

    What this country needs is a good moderate party and a place to vote for it that isn't in a church.

    Maybe next time...

    Great t-shirt in Boca Raton: (none / 0) (#132)
    by desert dawg on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 07:35:09 AM EST
    I (thought I) VOTED.

    Saw this last week in Boca, and I bet she's not alone.

    If not Clinton, then McCain for me! Sorry (none / 0) (#133)
    by NO2WONDERBOY on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:07:31 PM EST


    Speaking of liars... (none / 0) (#134)
    by sapienthetero on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:26:48 PM EST
    Hillary Clinton takes the cake.  Let's look at just the last week.  

    First there's the 'sniper' story.  Anyone who believes someone could 'misremember' running from a plane under sniper fire is either lying or so mentally unstable they're unsuitable for the job of dog catcher, let alone president.  

    Then there's the issue of her calendar, about which she managed to work in at least two lies.  Her calendar shows that the 'policy discussions' she was involved in were actually social events with other first ladies.  And after releasing her calendar following endless delays, she claimed she was being 'more open' than Obama.  In reality she released them under duress because of a lawsuit filed to compel their release.

    How can you tell if Hillary Clinton is lying?  Her lips are moving.