Buying An Election? Or Blocking Two?

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

One of the objections stated by the Obama campaign to revotes in Florida and Michigan was that Clinton supporters were willing to contribute money to the Democratic Party in Florida and to the State of Michigan to fund them. The phrase "buying an election" became the standard Obama supporter response. Nothing better proves how mendacious that excuse was from the Obama camp than this:

When Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill endorsed Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, she said she'd found a candidate who "gives us a reason to believe again." Obama believed in her, too, donating $10,000 from his political action committee to McCaskill's 2006 campaign. She received nothing from the PAC of New York Sen. Hillary Clinton.

. . . Since 2005, [Obama's] PAC has donated $710,900 to superdelegates, more than three times as much as Clinton's PAC has. Her PAC distributed $236,100 to superdelegates during the three-year period.

If funding an ELECTION, where no money goes to the voters themselves, can be questioned, what do we make of giving money DIRECTLY to the "voters" (the super delegates in this case)? I do not mind the donations - I mind the mendacious excuses to block the will of the voters of Michigan and Florida. The dirtiest trick of this campaign was Obama's blocking of the revotes in Michigan and Florida. Yes, I am quite angry about that.

NOTE - Due to the misinformation on FL/MI that is coming in some comments, I have chosen to close comments.

< Rev. Wright Attends Chicago Church Service | Texas County Convention Results >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    UGH! Big business and big bucks (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:22:21 PM EST
    still buys what this nation will have shoved down its throat.  Democracy be damned!

    Not exactly (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by andgarden on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:22:57 PM EST
    but BTD does expose so pretty serious hypocrisy.

    Wish I could agree with your Not Exactly (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:24:30 PM EST
    but right now I just can't.

    He only exposes Obama's hypocrisy (none / 0) (#103)
    by magster on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 05:11:12 PM EST
    because he wants to make sure that all the Clinton supporters here are ready to unite around the candidate he "supports" when Obama finally prevails.  

    How about jumping on McCain more around here; doing something constructive?  


    How about (5.00 / 4) (#107)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 05:13:44 PM EST
    I write whatever the f*ck I want to write? And if you do not like what I write, you can f*ckin leave?

    then Hillary, well duh his campaign is better at the grass roots level of getting funds.  So are you upset that he has raised more money, outspent your candidate by 3 to 1 or that he is sending money to other political members.  If its the last then "Shame on both of them" and you arguement is really weak.

    If that is what he's doing (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by Nadai on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 05:37:40 PM EST
    it's a smart thing to do.  I can read TL without ending up in a blind rage at Obama and his supporters.  You may find that insufficiently constructive, but I appreciate it.  I mostly want to vote for the Democratic nominee no matter who it is, but it'd be nice to do it without feeling like I needed a bleach bath afterwards.

    Nothing to see here (none / 0) (#106)
    by blogtopus on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 05:12:36 PM EST
    Move On, Move On

    How do PAC's work? (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by dianem on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:27:22 PM EST
    Is this one of those situations where Obama's supporters give virtually unlimited amounts and then he redistributes it to other candidates? If so, then isn't this one of the things we've been criticizing the right wing for doing for years?

    Also, where did that PAC money come from? Who were the donors? How much did they donate? Obama has been pretty critical of Bill Clinton's charity fundraising. Hos does this compare?

    There limnits (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:28:38 PM EST
    but the rules are quite different.

    It is considered a loophole of the campaign finance laws. But everyone uses them. Of course Obama is a hypocrite about it. But so are all pols.


    yeah they all do (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Florida Resident on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:31:07 PM EST
    but he claimed to be different.

    Now that he is winning, he is running a... (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:58:19 PM EST
    ...post unity campaign. We who refused to be unified lack the ability to comprehend what that is. We will never understand why it is necessary that votes not be counted. But it is for our own good, though we may never realize it. <snark>

    And of course they both have (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by andgarden on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:31:11 PM EST
    various state-level committees that exist to take checks bigger than $2,300.

    Cherry picking is easy (none / 0) (#70)
    by Arabiflora on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 03:46:00 PM EST
    Where is the corresponding "exposure" of HRC's contributions to superdels?

    If there are none, then the post is warranted. However, if there are similar cases of HRC bribes (isn't that what BTD implies that BHO or affiliates have done?), then be fair and acknowledge them.

    Short of that, BTD's post is just a drive-by hit piece. Oddly enough, I expect more from him.


    What's your problem? It's in the post (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Cream City on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 04:11:17 PM EST
    plus it has been reported here before.  So then the question becomes why you opt to ignore it and write as you do here -- and even more important, opt to ignore that the point is the hypocrisy of the candidate who argued against the plan to fund the revotes in two states and thus blocked their participation in the party primary process.

    Can we guess that candidate is your candidate?


    paragraph #2 of the two paragraph blockquote (none / 0) (#77)
    by Burned on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 04:15:37 PM EST
    You must have missed it by accident.

    See past comments (nt) (none / 0) (#81)
    by Cream City on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 04:23:38 PM EST
    Kill 'em with kindness, my mom always says. (5.00 / 0) (#86)
    by Burned on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 04:31:34 PM EST
    If that doesn't work, use sarcasm.
    Either way.

    What I missed (none / 0) (#88)
    by Arabiflora on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 04:36:33 PM EST
    was the call-out of particular superdels that HRC has 'bribed'. Given that BTD cited McCaskill's receipt of Obama PAC funds as evidence of hypocricy (or worse) on his part, perhaps he could have exposed, as a matter of fairness, where the $250,000 or so of HRC have been directed. Absent that balance, I cannot see his post as anything other than a cheap shot.

    If you want to argue about numbers, well... Scoreboard: Obama supporters have provided his campaign and his PAC with roughly 3x the funds available to HRC that might be used to support political allies. Is it actually surprising to anyone that he would use it?

    It is what it is.


    Clueless (none / 0) (#101)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 05:08:59 PM EST
    Your comment has nothing to do with my post. Nothing.

    Maybe if I don't use any names at all. (none / 0) (#105)
    by Burned on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 05:12:25 PM EST
    You are misreading the intent of the post.
    It is about one campaign having a problem with another campaign donating the cost of a revote because it might get them feelgood votes from the people who finally got to get their votes counted, vs that same campaign sort of blocking that vote by way of agreeing to agree when there is an agreement, which there isn't because they haven't agreed, NOT having a problem donating to superdelegates that then feelgoodingly endorse them.
    It's hyporitical.

    Pretend this is any old bunch of politicians.


    Readiong comprehension (none / 0) (#100)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 05:05:56 PM EST
    or honesty comprehension?

    I'm confused (none / 0) (#26)
    by brad12345 on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:58:49 PM EST
    The criticism here seems to be that Obama raised funds for other democrats with less fundraising talent--and that makes him a hypocrite and bad for the Democratic party.  Huh?

    (Adding that--IMO, there should be a re-vote in Florida and Michigan that is fair, has both candidates on the ballot, etc.  But the equivalency seems woefully misguided.)


    you got this part right (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Josey on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 02:47:20 PM EST
    >>>Obama raised funds for other democrats with less fundraising talent--

    that sounds noble, but Obama knew he was running for president when he participated in fundraising for "other Democrats" who just happen to be superdelegates.


    So... (none / 0) (#65)
    by brad12345 on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 03:32:00 PM EST
    you're saying that presidential candidates shouldn't help other democrats get elected?  Really?

    I agree with the point about the re-votes.  They should happen.  The argument that collecting money to fund the re-vote could somehow influence the outcome is specious at best.  

    But, independent of the re-vote, shouldn't we want any prominent democrat--Obama, both Clintons, Al Gore, John Kerry, John Edwards and on and on--raising money to help out downstream party members?  


    Now LESS confused (none / 0) (#99)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 05:05:00 PM EST
    Did you even read my post?

    I think (5.00 / 6) (#49)
    by Step Beyond on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 03:00:04 PM EST
    The criticism is that the Obama campaign on the one hand thinks that money given to fund a revote would somehow influence that revote and that would be wrong whereas money given to superdelegates which could influence their vote is ok.

    Confused is a nice word (none / 0) (#98)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 05:04:31 PM EST
    for what you are.

    Campaign (5.00 / 5) (#11)
    by sas on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:38:38 PM EST

    Obama could have done the right thing, and worked to have a complete re-vote in Michigan and Florida.

    He could have shown leadership and said "let the people's will be done", allowing all votes to be counted.  That would have been admirable.

    But that's not Obama.  He dragged his feet, he stalled, he made up reasons why it could not work.  He proposed Michigan be 50/50, when he didn't earn 50% in the votes - giving him all of Edwards' votes at that.

    No, he managed to subvert the vote.  Now, his backers want Hillary to quit (and she's no quitter) so even more votes won't count.

    Who is this guy?  What kind of Democrat doesn't want the votes to count?

    One thing we know, he is no leader.


    To paraphrase Shakespeare... (5.00 / 5) (#12)
    by Marguerite Quantaine on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:38:55 PM EST
    Methinks Obama doth protest too much.

    A clear sign by all that he feels threatened by Hillary and those who rally behind her.

    Hillary Clinton understands she serves her party best only when she serves her country best.

    So, as long as 62% of the citizenry seek to partake in the nominating process, it is to her credit that she stays in the race -- and to the discredit of those who oppose her.

    Indeed, it's the courage and perseverance of Hillary Clinton that best demonstrates respect for the voice of the people. And the citizens of the final 10 states to vote would do well to remember that.

    Those who would rally for expediency and convenience over the will of the people be damned.

    I can't understand this anger over Michigan and Fl (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by tsackton1 on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:43:04 PM EST
    I have been a long term supporter of Howard Dean, and I just don't understand how people can be angry over the f-up of michigan and florida.  The leap frogging of states to get earlier primary dates threatened to totally make a true primary season impossible -- and the party was taking steps to open up the process- i.e. south carolina and nevada.

    Unfortunately, state party leaders in both states were unwilling to compromise with the DNC, so they got penalized.

    Nothing unfair here.  Just those who play by the rules and those who don't.  I was offended when Hillary Clinton did not take her name off the Mich. ballot -- since it implied a two-faced attitude towards the DNC and NH and Iowa- i.e. saying she was in favor of the rules, but then not really doing everything in her power to back up that statement.

    The fact that these state primaries collapsed into meaningless contests is not the fault of the Obama camapaign -- it is the fault of those states not being willing to abide by DNC rules.

    As to the delegates from these states -- of course they will be seated and participate -- in last place, once the nomination has been decided.  Those upset with this should take it up with their state parties who created the problem, not the campaigns.

    DNC error (5.00 / 6) (#18)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:47:28 PM EST
    When you make a policy decision, you hope for the best and have a plan for the worst case scenario.  Dean and his colleagues did not plan for the worst case.  So there edict of punishing Mi and Fl.  was just pure bad planning.  

    The contests were not meaningless, cause people voting is not meaningless.  If you believe that then what respect do you have for people's voting rights?  

    Meaningless were the idiotic "roolz".  


    Blah blah blah (5.00 / 4) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:48:26 PM EST
    I know you do not care. I have read you on it.

    Move on to a new point please.


    Moi? (none / 0) (#23)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:50:54 PM EST
    Tip: move your mouse over BTD's "Parent" (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by jes on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:59:01 PM EST
    and you can see he was responding to #18 - not your #18 comment.

    Wow..thanks (none / 0) (#28)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 02:00:55 PM EST
    Dork here...

    I have tried that maneuver (none / 0) (#61)
    by hairspray on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 03:23:06 PM EST
    and it doesn't work.  Am I missing something?  I hover like a hekicopter...nothing.

    Click (none / 0) (#62)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 03:24:59 PM EST
    don't just hover

    You can click but the hove shows your comment (none / 0) (#63)
    by jes on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 03:28:55 PM EST
    parent ending as .../2008/3/29/141737/611/27#27

    The hover is typically displayed at the bottom of your browser in the gray border at the bottom of the page.


    Suppose (5.00 / 5) (#31)
    by sas on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 02:07:45 PM EST
    that I agree with what you say (which I do not in regard to Florida - Democrats protested, Republican legislature insisted.)

    The situation is still untenable.  Several million people's votes do not count.  If Obama really wanted his possible nomination to reflect the will of all voters he would have moved to rectify the problem.

    The fact that he did not, means that only some votes count.  If this were a lopsided contest I guess you could argue that it does not matter.  But it is not, and it does.

    To Hillary voters, Barack will have 'stolen' the election.


    Impeachment is off the table, (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by alsace on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 02:30:47 PM EST
    but disenfranchisement of fellow Democrats is just hunky-dory.  Yep, seems straightforward.

    Welll.. (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by Rainsong on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 04:51:53 PM EST
    Firstly, the punishment did not fit the crime, and the RNC managed their end of it with a minimum of fuss.

    Secondly, the DNC did not think through the possible consequences of its overly harsh punishment, for the Party, and for the GE. They didn't have a back-up plan in case things didn't work out.

    Thirdly, there were 'mixed-messages' given to voters in those states coming from both the candidates campaigns and the Party.

    Fourth - Dean made revotes conditional on agreement by the candidates.

    If it was truly just an internal Party matter, then neither candidate should have been given this power. Once given however - it was then Obama's denial which blocked the revotes.


    Obama's Frenemy Strikes Again! (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by AdrianLesher on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 02:19:40 PM EST
    Has BTD ever called Clinton mendacious? How come Obama routinely is the recipient of so many negative adjectives? And of course in BTD's mind Obama is guilty of the "dirtiest trick" in the campaign.

    Not a word about tricks like the Clinton campaign saying they weren't going to challenge Texas caucus votes, then dumping a wholesale challenge at the last moment.

    Perhaps this is a case of IOKIYHC.

    With supporters like these, who needs enemies? Again, BTD's pro-Obama pose is a sham.

    I'm glad she challenged them... (5.00 / 4) (#39)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 02:26:23 PM EST
    ...I'm glad that her campaign has finally accepted that they are damned if they do and damned if they don't because now she is the underdog and she has to  avail herself of every option.

    BTD (none / 0) (#59)
    by PennProgressive on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 03:19:51 PM EST
    does not need to be defended by me or anyone  else. Isupport HRC but I respect BTD's views. May be you are on TL. BTD is unbiased, may be  a supporter of Obama, but he  callls  it the way he sees it. You like  most Obama  suppporters  are anythinng but.

    does this sound like whining? (none / 0) (#68)
    by hairspray on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 03:37:29 PM EST
    Italics (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by Demi Moaned on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 02:42:37 PM EST
    I'm seeing the whole page in italics. Did you leave out an end-italics tag afterSpeaking for me only?

    Not just you. The whole post is unbearable to (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by jes on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 03:06:06 PM EST
    read. It didn't start off that way when I was reading downstairs on my PC. But I moved upstairs to my MAC and Safari and it is ugly. Just checked my PC upstairs also - it is all italic as well but not as hard to read.

    The problem is in the intro text (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by jes on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 03:12:44 PM EST
    where it says: By Big Tent Democrat

    the closing i tag is missing >


    It has f'd up the front page also (none / 0) (#72)
    by jes on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 03:53:37 PM EST
    I took a look at the style sheet and there is no italic definition there - so on the home page, everything after the story title for this story is now in italics!

    Me too (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by Burned on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 03:06:15 PM EST
    Just so you don't feel alone.

    Hmmm (5.00 / 3) (#73)
    by Step Beyond on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 04:05:45 PM EST
    The whole thing looks fine to me. I'm using Firefox so I'm not sure if thats the difference.

    Just checked Firefox (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by jes on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 04:12:17 PM EST
    you are right; it is ignoring the error:

    <p><i>By Big Tent Democrat</i</p>

    MSIE 6&7 and Safari are are messed up though.


    <i>I hate italics</i> (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Burned on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 04:23:32 PM EST
    I really do
    They mess with my comprehension. It's all footnotes.

    someone should donate (none / 0) (#110)
    by blogtopus on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 05:17:07 PM EST
    a spare < /i>

    Fixed (none / 0) (#127)
    by Demi Moaned on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 05:59:33 PM EST
    It seems to be fixed now.

    regardless of the outcome (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by white n az on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 04:42:35 PM EST
    in the Texas caucus, the will of the people was +4% in Texas when votes mattered.

    to address the comment to which you responded...

    for the past several decades, but I just don't recall the caucuses being "finessed" to the degree we've seen from the Obamans.

    'Finessed' seems to be giving too much credit. Caucuses previously worked for serveral reasons, one being low voter turnout, another being that these were generally considered regional elections where the outcome was typically predictable. I suppose that we should credit GWB and a very inept Congress which has motivated voters across the country and in turn, exposing the fact that the caucus based system is not a very good way to go when people actually want to participate.

    But most significantly, the Obama campaign tapped into the years of anti-Clinton rhetoric and there clearly are a significant number of Democrats, for whatever reason, who would prefer to have anyone but a Clinton as the nominee. The impact of this became apparent when John Edwards withdrew and there was only one choice left for these people.

    I think, more than anything else, Obama's campaign owes gratitude to John Edwards for dropping out when he did.

    Exactly (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Rainsong on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 05:24:42 PM EST

    The caucus system works well enough in small and red states, where primary turnout is historically much lower, than it was this year.

    As has been posted here before, the mathematical bias in the delegate allocations is heavily weighted and skewed towards the small and red states.

    For all I know, it was designed this way in part, to give some extra 'reward', as in extra tickets to Denver, for those small pockets of loyal Democrats in those regions who regularly took the time and made the effort in what are historically considered unwinnable GE states. Gotta give them something for that loyalty, you know what I mean?
    So they get more than their "fair share" of Convention delegates.

    But most significantly, the Obama campaign tapped into the years of anti-Clinton rhetoric and there clearly are a significant number of Democrats... who would prefer to have anyone but a Clinton as the nominee.

    The youth voters for example, have grown up with the anti-Clinton propaganda, as well as romanticised Hollywood movies revising American history. They wouldn't feel startled by hearing a Democrat making references to how 'transformational' the Reagan administration was either.


    Well I'll be damn. You mean Obama (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Teresa on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 04:43:26 PM EST
    is a politician. I can't believe it. Do your friends know? :)

    McCaskill's Obama connections (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Grandmother on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 05:03:08 PM EST
    will come back to haunt her at re-election time.  Missouri is not going to go for Obama. As Taylor Marsh wrote about her homestate (and mine) the Rev. Wright lost Mo for Obama.  And by association Claire will not win re-election because of her endorsement of Obama.

    The only Democrats presidential candidates to win during my voting career (since '72) are Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.  There is a reason why:  we are the state that has the son of Roy Blunt as our governor, our past governors include John Ashcroft (remember him) who was also our attorney general and is responsible for much of the erosion of Roe v. Wade during the 1980s.  There is a vast swath of land between St. Louis and Kansas City and it isn't pretty out there for Obama - and Claire knows that.

    Of course Obama's donation from his PAC explains why, although Bill Clinton, stomped for her in 2006 as well as Obama, she threw Hillary under the bus for Obama.  

    Hillary could win here but Obama will not.

    I have been to some bleak places (5.00 / 3) (#111)
    by facta non verba on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 05:18:11 PM EST
    but little prepared me for to odyessey to Harare, Zimbabwe to monitor the latest installment of Robert Mugabe's hold on electoral power. First the good news, the elections held here today were by and large peaceful and orderly. Lines were long, the votes enthusiastic in typical African fashion with song and dance adding to the festival atmosphere. Still what do Zimbabweans have to smile at. Their economy is in shambles. Beggars are proliferate and I was approached constanstly by men offering services for this that and the other. Work and hard cash was on their minds. I have monitored elections in Haiti, Argentina, the US (Columbus OH in 2004), Sri Lanka, South Africa and Cambodia and never have I seen such utter misery. We spent yesterday in the slums of Harare where a thin gruel of maize embellished with leaves serve as dinner. A chicken is beyond question, it runs hundreds of millions of Zimbabwean dollars. The tourist trade here in a country built for tourism is non-extistent.

    Where these elections fair and free? Depends on your definition of free and fair. Mugagbe did raise salaries of all public employees in the last week or two, tractors and seed were distributed to "like-minded" voters but there were plenty of ballots available (perhaps too many if you are of suspicious mind) and polling places were open. In the stations I monitored in Harare, voters seemed able to voice their opinions pro and anti but everywhere we went we were accompanied by a not so subtle Zimbabwean guard. Results should trickle in today (now Sunday AM) and we will see how well the opposition fared. If Zimbabwe feet are any indication, Mugabe should lose but no hero of independence apart from Senegal and the Cote d'Ivoire has ever surrendered power willingly.

    A note to Oculus: I read the op-ed in the NYT you suggested. The road to peace in Darfur runs through Beijing. Dismantle that relationship, peace in Darfur becomes plausible. Still that op-ed by Mark Halpern argues that a little force in the right place would end the genocide.  The article raised an important question, which is more important respecting Sudan's sovereignty or ending genocide. Hard to believe that this is a question but a state that cannot protect its own people in my mind has little right to normal rights of sovereignty.

    As per Obama, this is nothing new. Remember Alice Palmer and the four others he disenfranchised in his first run for office in 1996. He used electoral procedures to knock them off the ballot. Remember Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) who was threatened with a stiff primary run. None of this is illegal, immoral or unethical however is a question that each of us should decide for ourselves.

    I have long argued that Obama is just like Richard Nixon in his approach to politics. This is just another case of Nixonesque behaviour. Like Nixon, Obama will too unravel. Still he has the lives of a cat. How many has he used up?

    thanks very much (none / 0) (#119)
    by RalphB on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 05:37:51 PM EST
    for your service to democracy.

    Dem Primary Just A Foolish Power Struggle (5.00 / 7) (#112)
    by pluege on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 05:20:45 PM EST
    The Democratic primary boils down to nothing more than a feud within the Democratic party between the Clintons and the anti-Clintons. Obama is just a tool. The power struggle is between two factions of the Democratic elite and MI and FL are just political footballs in the struggle.

    It is unfortunate that they would take this opportunity with so much at stake to jeopardize the only thing that is really important: keeping a republican out of the White House in order that they (all the big shots such as Pelosi, Kennedy, Kerry, Feingold, Richardson, etc.) can play their foolish power game.

    Obama is nothing more than an anti-Clinton movement. For one thing, look at at his ridiculous premise: unifying America, appealing to republicans - WTF? Who cares what republicans think. Look at the damage and destruction republicans have done to America. No one should care one iota what they think or want, let alone courting them. But courting republicans in the primary is the only way the anti-Clintons can challenge the base of support the Clintons have within the Democratic Party.

    Eeeeeyep (none / 0) (#117)
    by Edgar08 on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 05:35:39 PM EST
    That about sums it up.

    Who would have imagined that Dean (none / 0) (#122)
    by MarkL on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 05:49:49 PM EST
    and Kerry would be on the same side of the primary wars, both against Clinton, this year---not me!

    Reminds me of 1980 (none / 0) (#126)
    by Rainsong on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 05:59:19 PM EST

    When Kennedy ran against Jimmy Carter in the primary, Kennedy didn't get nominated over Carter because of the dead Mary Jo scandal.

    But, Reagan successfully used Kennedy's primary campaign speeches to smash Carter in the GE:

    Reagan campaign ad 1980


    Suuuure (none / 0) (#128)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 06:01:53 PM EST
    That is what won it for Reagan. Sheesh.

    How old are you?


    OK,, granted... (none / 0) (#135)
    by Rainsong on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 06:26:47 PM EST
    on re-read - an exaggeration - sorry my bad

    just exploiting primary campaign speeches in the following GE is nothing "new"


    lol - I gave you a 5 (none / 0) (#131)
    by lilburro on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 06:09:13 PM EST
    just for this line "appealing to republicans - WTF? Who cares what republicans think."  Word.  

    I hope they enjoy the 140 degree heat and inability to afford antibiotics in their sweet Red State world ;D


    Judas alert (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by IKE on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 08:54:54 PM EST
    Barack supporters are speaking from both sides of their mouths. First they say let the voters vote, now they want to stop it, they've already blocked two States voters from doing so. Then it was "let the super delegates vote in line with their state or district," now they make excuse for Ted Kennedy, Kerry and Judas by saying super delegates are independent and free to make up their minds, only of course if making up their minds mean endorsing Barack.

    Hillary has found her message: (none / 0) (#1)
    by andgarden on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:21:24 PM EST
    "I will fight to count your vote."

    "The roolz" is not an effective response to that.

    Is this an effective response? (none / 0) (#9)
    by proseandpromise on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:34:20 PM EST

    Hillary is a politician playing politics.  So is Obama.  Let's not hinge our opinion about anyone's respect for democracy on this.


    Uterly ineffective (5.00 / 7) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:36:15 PM EST
    since she was clearly for the revotes and Obama blocked them.

    Let me repeat, OBAMA BLOCKED THE REVOTES!!

    Now, if your defense is Obama is a run of the mill pol, well, you go with that one at daily kos. See how it plays.


    I don't think he's run of the mill (none / 0) (#15)
    by proseandpromise on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:44:14 PM EST
    But I think he's a poll just like her.  I've said it probably too many times now, but I don't like that Hillary is making a case like she is a great defender of democracy and virtue.  She may be on the right side of the argument even (though the whole re-vote thing seems like it would inevitably have problems to me) but she isn't there for pure reasons.  I just don't want to keep hearing the "evey voice counts" meme from the people who discounted the fly over states (like where I live) and the "latte-drinking" states.  It is blatant hypocrisy.  She should just argue that it's good for her, and good for the people of those states.  That would be a fair argument.  

    What is hilarious to me is that Hillary made this "every voice matters" argument in my state of Indiana.  My state is RED and my states delegates fit in to the category of "second class" a la Clinton advisers.  But because she needs every delegate at this point, all of a sudden, my state matters.  


    Say it at Obama World (none / 0) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:49:14 PM EST
    see what happens.

    I'll try and report back in an open thread.

    Wear a helmet. (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by Burned on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 02:28:34 PM EST
    It's a real thick wall.
    Or maybe some sort of kicking at an anthill metaphor would be better.
    I can't decide.

    funny! (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Josey on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 03:47:05 PM EST
    and this same article is being touted on DK front page as a GOOD THING for Obama.

    Howard (none / 0) (#17)
    by tek on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:45:37 PM EST
    says the MI & FL delegates will be seated AFTER we have a nominee.

    x (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by CognitiveDissonance on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 02:08:26 PM EST
    Oh, sure. Count them when it's meaningless. That will surely let the people of MI and FL know that their votes were respected. [/snark]

    Well (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by sas on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 02:12:45 PM EST
    Howard can try that sleight of hand - seated after the nominee (which means "there - now shut up").

    But Hillary voters will not forget.


    Here's another (3.00 / 2) (#48)
    by OxyCon on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 02:53:51 PM EST
    ...Youtube video which shows how Obama's cronies sabotaged the Michigan revote and it shows their smugness in doing so:



    That's ugly (5.00 / 0) (#113)
    by blogtopus on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 05:22:00 PM EST
    Is it an ugly coincidence that the two senators that they interviewed as supporting Obama in this case were black?

    I'd like to know the real percentage of state senators who blocked this revote attempt, and whether CNN deliberately chose to concentrate on the black members only, or if they were the only ones who were blocking it.


    My (none / 0) (#14)
    by tek on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:43:43 PM EST
    Obama friend said that the TX vote will come in today and Hillary will lose.  What is he talking about?

    The county caucuses (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:47:44 PM EST
    Clinton won the Texas primary.

    There is a county convention process today in Texas. The final delegate thing is later.

    It is a non-story at any sane web site.

    Keith Olbermann believes it is a big deal though.


    I think that this creates (5.00 / 3) (#91)
    by white n az on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 04:46:33 PM EST
    a cross purpose problem for Obama.

    It's obvious that Clinton won the primary by +4%

    What Obama picks up in delegate gains in merely underscores and diminishes his other caucus victories because it becomes more obvious how caucuses run counter to the will of the voters.

    Further proof of the 'White Men Can't Jump' Theory...when you lose, you win and when you win, you lose.


    How is the allotment of delegates in TX (none / 0) (#143)
    by DemPrezin2008 on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 06:51:08 PM EST
    a non story, are you trying to disenfranchise Red states, small states and heavilly populated African American states again?

    Obama will likely... (none / 0) (#20)
    by proseandpromise on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:47:52 PM EST
    end with more total delegates in TX.  The percentages will favor Clinton but pledged delegates will be Obama's.  

    To many people.... (none / 0) (#29)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 02:01:06 PM EST
    ...this will seem like another fix by the DNC roolz for the simple reason that it is counterintuitive. It painfully highlights what is wrong with the caucus system. It might be better for Obama if Hillary manages to win even just one more delegate than he does, but I'm sure his campaign won't see it that way.

    It might be a dumb system... (none / 0) (#33)
    by proseandpromise on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 02:08:31 PM EST
    but I would hope no one sees it as a "fix" since its been that way for a long time.

    Well taken in conjunction with not allowing.... (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 02:22:12 PM EST
    ...revotes in Michigan and Florida, I would bet money that quite a few people will take it that way. You can argue that they would be wrong to do so, but I don't think that will convince them in a climate in which there is also such a hue and cry from supposed party leaders for Clinton to drop out.

    Maybe I wasn't paying attention (none / 0) (#44)
    by alsace on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 02:44:56 PM EST
    for the past several decades, but I just don't recall the caucuses being "finessed" to the degree we've seen from the Obamans.

    the county conventions (none / 0) (#30)
    by RalphB on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 02:03:09 PM EST
    are being held today.  next step in determining delegates.  i imagine they will finally know how many delegates came from the caucuses for each candidate.  up to now, it's been a guesstimate.

    The linked to article also states that (none / 0) (#16)
    by TomLincoln on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:45:29 PM EST
    The study found that the presidential candidate who gave more money to the superdelegates received their endorsements 82 percent of the time. That's based on a review of elected officials who are serving as superdelegates and who'd endorsed a candidate as of Feb. 25.

    In cases where superdelegates received money from Obama's Hope Fund but none from Clinton's PAC, Obama got the superdelegates' support 85 percent of the time. And in cases where superdelegates received money from Clinton's Hillpac but none from Obama's PAC, 75 percent backed Clinton.

    Some superdelegates, such as Democratic Sens. Robert Byrd of West Virginia and Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, received $10,000 from both Obama and Clinton. Neither senator has endorsed a presidential candidate.

    This is indeed very worrisome for the Clinton campaign, in my opinion, since she needs more of the superdelegates at this point than Obama does. More reason to fight for MI/FL by Clinton camp!

    Only good will come out of do-over (none / 0) (#35)
    by timber on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 02:14:31 PM EST
    Michigan and Florida are swing states.  If both campaigned there vigorously this time,  voters will get to know Dems and Obama and Hillary.  

    Whatever the outcome if Obama wins or Hillary wins---it will be good for them in the general election.

    Obama just has to close the gap between him and Hillary.

    Why is Obama winning the framing everytime---this tells me that Hillary campaign is not a strong campaign.

    EVen in Talk radio--Air America is anti Hillary,  blogs are anti-Hillary,  MSM is anti-Hillary.

    If this is triangulation in reverse---every side is anti-Hillary.

    However,  I really believe---Hillary is the stronger candidate to win in GE -- because she will win more electoral votes.

    It is both and really the same thing (none / 0) (#36)
    by felizarte on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 02:15:40 PM EST
    I come from a country where election campaigns are really rough.  There is a term used in the local language which roughly translates to "add & subtract":  Add to your votes and do what you can to subtract votes from your opponent which includes giving money to your opponent's supporters not to cast a vote for either.

    A vote for you counts as two because it simultaneously deducts a vote from your opponent.  Asking your opponent's supporter not to vote subtracts from your opponent's vote only.

    So PAC money to delegates is ADDITION and blocking Michigan and Florida votes is subtraction.

    FL? (none / 0) (#40)
    by 1jpb on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 02:26:37 PM EST
    I don't understand why we refer to the MI and FL problem as one issue.

    In MI BHO supporters thought that the new plan was unfair.  As we know HRC folk believed that it was fair.  Can we put that aside for a moment?

    In FL the D leadership said that the thing fell apart because it was not feasible.  This is not at all a BHO problem.

    "We researched every potential alternative process - from caucuses to county conventions to mail-in elections - but no plan could come anywhere close to being viable in Florida."

    From the Chair of the FL D Party

    Why is BHO blamed for FL?

    I suspect that Obama (none / 0) (#56)
    by maritza on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 03:12:56 PM EST
    if he is the Demnominee will seat the delegates of both Florida and Michigan at the convention exactly how they voted with Hillary getting 50% of Michigan and Florida.

    All the delegates will be seated.

    Exactly how they voted? (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by LHinSeattle on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 03:22:53 PM EST
    They voted 55% for Clinton in MI, not 50%.  

    50-50 split (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 05:24:13 PM EST
    is not the will of the people.  Doesn't matter how many times the Obama supporters say it is.

    Outrage (none / 0) (#57)
    by PennProgressive on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 03:14:48 PM EST
    BTD thanks again for an excellent post. It makes you wonder why don't we hear or read more about this in the MSM? To quote Bob Dole (from a different context, "where is the  outrage?"

    Americans will never (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by Firefly4625 on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 03:33:38 PM EST
    hear this from the corporate media - all we'll ever hear is "Obama says Hillary is trying to buy the election."

    Thank God for the web. Can you imagine if the MSM still had a monopoly on "information?" Still, I'm constantly amazed at how, with 90% trash coverage of her and 90% adoration for Obama, Hillary's still in it.


    Do you have a link to (none / 0) (#67)
    by learningcurve on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 03:37:24 PM EST
    where Obama blocked revotes? Maybe he did, maybe he simply didn't agree to terms that would only benefit one side. It would be interesting to see just how he diabolically blocked the will of the voters. His plot started early, last year the Democrats in the Florida legislature joined forces with him and unanimously voted with the Republicans for an early primary.

    Excuse me (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 04:27:40 PM EST
    But how does a revote only benefit one side?  It is one side.........it is the side of the people and the voices of the people in a democracy HELLO!  If he was for revotes they would be happening NOW.  Next thing I know you guys will be wiretapping me because I'm a Hillary supporter.  I mean if I'm doing something anti-Obama I really shouldn't have the right to just freely go about doing stuff like that huh?  It's dangerous to Obama, somebody needs to violate my rights or if somebody does that's sort of okay huh?  How is it that Democrats on these blogs have lost all sense of principles?  Maybe nobody really had any to begin with, it wouldn't be the first time my expectations and reality didn't match up!

    Read this site (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 04:57:38 PM EST
    I hate comments from people who do not know whast they are talking about and wh0o deny what every one else knows.

    No links.  No more intercourse in fact.


    DO not respond to this comment (none / 0) (#129)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 06:03:54 PM EST
    No more intercourse with me mes no responses to me.

    Do not address me any further at this site learning curve. Talk with someone else but do not address me or my arguments again.


    learninngcurve (none / 0) (#130)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 06:08:34 PM EST
    Your comments are filled with falsehoods.

    Do not comment any further at this web site today. One thing we do not do at THIS WEB SITE is allow the continued dissemination of falsehoods.

    I take your word that you are saying what you believe to be true. We do not have the inclination to respond to all of your falsehoods about issues we have gone over in great detail at this site. We simply will not do it.

    I know you think you are not spouting falsehoods. We know you are.

    You are suspended for the day and are instructed to not discuss the MI-FL issue again at this site. Why? Because everything you write is false. Everything. We will not have it here.


    See url to video news report (none / 0) (#83)
    by Cream City on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 04:25:25 PM EST
    upthread and see archives for several past posts on this.

    What you have done here is (none / 0) (#79)
    by halstoon on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 04:18:03 PM EST
    to imply that Sen. Obama began plotting in 2005 to "buy" the votes of SDs in 2008, and that those same SDs have now endorsed him in direct response to his "purchase."

     If you believe this, why are you affiliated with the party at all and "tepidly" supporting Obama to boot?

    That isn't what he is saying (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Step Beyond on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 04:24:19 PM EST
    To quote BTD

    I do not mind the donations - I mind the mendacious excuses to block the will of the voters of Michigan and Florida.

    If someone thinks the donations to superdelegates  are acceptable (and who doesn't) then how do you justify saying that donations to help pay for a revote would curry undue influence?


    FWIW. Obama has made a point (5.00 / 0) (#85)
    by jes on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 04:30:24 PM EST
    of not accepting money from PACs even as he created one of his own. Yes, he is a new kind of pol.

    If one cannot--or does not wish to--distinguish (none / 0) (#102)
    by halstoon on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 05:09:18 PM EST
    between making donations to various campaigns and having campaigns pay for elections to be held, then I suppose I would simply reject that initial premise.

    Indeed (5.00 / 3) (#104)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 05:12:00 PM EST
    The distinction HURTS Obama's argument.

    Making campaign contributions to the very people who will "vote" is construable as "vote buying."

    Paying for the election but having no money at all go to the actual voters can not be so construed.

    You have it exactly backwards. I find it hard to believe you actually think what you wrote. to be frank, I do not believe it.


    Quite the contrary. (none / 0) (#132)
    by halstoon on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 06:16:05 PM EST
    On the one hand, you have Obama's PAC donating to campaigns that took place in 2006, the groundwork for which would have taken place in 2005. Sen. Obama was in year one of his Senate career in 2005. You imply that he bagan making strategic donations to benefit himself three years down the road, to a bunch of people who in all likelihood would not play a part in the 2008 nomination. Indeed, if Obama had this kind of foresight to lay the bribery groundwork as such, then he certainly gets a gold star for foresight and cunning.

    Having a campaign essentially say to the people, "Gee, we'll gladly pony up the cash to buy you out of this bind of not being able to vote that your own state got you into last spring" is A) a much more direct and transparent bribe, and B) does in fact offer the voters something of value, if not cash.

     You are conflating two things which bear no relation to one another in a fatally flawed analogy. I'm sorry to point this out to you.


    Bwahahahahah! (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 06:18:23 PM EST
    Let me put it this way, if you REALLY believe that paying for the election is THAT valuable then you must be sure that Obama is dead in MI and FL.

    Your every argument makes the situation and actions of Obama even WORSE.

    Put away the shovel PLEASE.


    Nooooo (none / 0) (#108)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 05:14:54 PM EST
    I exposed the hypocrisy of his stance on private funding of revotes.

    I couldn't find any reference ... (none / 0) (#134)
    by Tortmaster on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 06:26:15 PM EST
    ... to Hillary Clinton calling for re-votes in Michigan and Florida until March 12, 2008. That's a smidge over two weeks ago. Seems like she waited way too long. Granted I did a search on her official campaign website looking for the word "Michigan" in the title.

    Before that, the only statement, "HUBdate" or other campaign material on her website specifically dealing with Michigan in the title was a short statement on January 15, 2008 -- the day of the Michigan primary, and that short statement didn't mention a re-vote.  

    Can someone point me to the exact re-vote plan for Michigan promoted by the HRC campaign? How did it deal with Democrats who voted in the Republican primary? Would it grant them amnesty from state law to allow them to vote in two primaries that year? Did her plan include a way to keep Republicans from voting in the re-vote? Was it a mail-in vote or something else? Can someone point out exactly what Obama's criticisms of the plan were? Did the Michigan legislature actually pass a re-vote plan? Did the Michigan Democratic Party actually pass a specific re-vote plan.

    Obama campaigned for the Democratic candidate to take over Dennis Hastert's seat from Illinois. It was a very Republican, suburban district. The Republican lost. Seems like Obama has some great coattails. In addition, he is fundraising on such a great scale that he's able to give to a bunch of Democrats so they can win. That doesn't sound too bad for the Democratic party.  

    Cherck our archives (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 06:41:42 PM EST
    The issue was covered very closely, or according to Mark Schmitt, "like a laser" at this site.

    Heh. (none / 0) (#136)
    by lilburro on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 06:27:23 PM EST
    From ABC News:

    "In addition to the need for general election prep, Obama added that after the June primaries there will not be any further information to be had.

    'We will have had contests in all 50 states plus several territories," he said. "We will have tallied up the pledge delegate vote. We will have tallied up the popular vote, we will have tallied up how many states that were won by who. And then at that point I think people should have more than enough information to make a decision.'"

    What I Hope Obama Meant:  We will revote in MI/FL or in some other way acknowledge them.

    I like the statement myself (none / 0) (#141)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 06:40:48 PM EST
    So the man who is bringing new politics (none / 0) (#139)
    by Florida Resident on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 06:37:32 PM EST
    is just going to keep on practicing the old politics.  Sounds to me like he is either a liar or he is being used by his campaign either way he is not a good candidate for president in my opinion,

    Comments with false inforrmartion (none / 0) (#140)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 06:40:07 PM EST
    will be deleted. No judgment on the commenter, I just do not have the time nor inclination to correct all the grievous errors on the FL/MI situation. Read our archives on the subject if you have some doubts on the facts.