Obama To Blame If The Dem Contest Goes To The Convention

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

Obama supporter Josh Marshall:

Sen. Clinton gave a pretty astonishing interview to the Washington Post in which she appears to say she will stay in the race till the convention in August, where she will take her fight to the credentials committee to have the delegates from the non-sanctioned Michigan and Florida primaries seated.

(Emphasis supplied.) What did Clinton actually say?

I have no intention of stopping until we finish what we started and until we see what happens in the next 10 contests and until we resolve Florida and Michigan. And if we don't resolve it, we'll resolve it at the convention -- that's what credentials committees are for.

(Emphasis mine.) Josh's reaction to this?

Now, that can have no other meaning than resolved on terms the Clinton campaign finds acceptable. It can't mean anything else since, of course, at least officially, for the Democratic National Committee, it is resolved. The penalty was the resolution.

(Emphasis supplied.) Excuse me? Not even Barack Obama says MI and FL is resolved. And Howard Dean certainly does not say this. I do not know where Marshall came up with that.

What Dean, Obama and the DNC are saying is that Michigan and Florida WILL be resolved. Obama says it will be resolved AFTER he gains the nomination. He has fought against revotes. Absent that, he has argued for 50/50 splits of the delegations of Florida and Michigan.

Clinton wants revotes. Obama does not. The main reason the situation will not be resolved is because Obama did not want it resolved BEFORE he won the nomination. Hillary is saying, not so fast. Win the nomination with FL and MI counting. Josh Marshall will not deal with that reality. Clinton has put it out there for all honest observers to see.

Other observers will invent their own reality. Hillary Clinton wants the will of the voters of Florida and Michigan to be counted in the contest for the Democratic nomination. Barack Obama does not. Josh Marshall writes:

That leaves two real possibilities: seat the non-sanctioned January primary delegates or hold the primaries again, a revote. I don't know many people who've ever thought possibility one was going to happen. And the consensus seems to be that the time window on possibility two has closed (though it's not completely clear to me why it couldn't be reopened if everyone agreed they wanted to do it.) So that really does sound like she's saying she wants to take this to the credentials committee at the convention at the end of August, regardless of the outcome of the next ten primaries and caucuses.

Here is a thought Josh, how about having the revotes that BARACK OBAMA has blocked? Josh of course can not just ignore the elephant in the room - Obama's blocking of the revotes in FL and MI, he has to smear Clinton:

By saying she'll continue through the remaining ten contests, regardless of the outcome, and implicitly, I take it, regardless of any superdelegate declarations over the next two months, Sen. Clinton is saying it's no longer about pledged delegates, or superdelegates or popular votes. It's about Florida and Michigan. Period.

(Emphasis supplied.) "Implicitly" for Josh means him making it up I guess. There is NOTHING in what Clinton said that made that implicit. Indeed, Marshall' statement makes NO sense. If Obama has secured the nomination IRRESPECTIVE of Florida and Michigan, he will agree to seat the delegations. Unless, Josh Marshall is implicitly saying that Barack Obama would STILL refuse to seat Florida and Michigan even if he had secured the nomination. In which case, Marshall is labelling Obama an idiot.

Marshall is suffering from a severe case of Clinton Derangement Syndrome now. His post is nonsensical. And it ignores what Clinton is REALLY saying.

Let the people of Michigan and Florida count in choosing the Dem nominee. By revote would be best. Obama has blocked revotes. Apparently he does not believe he can necessarily win the nomination if Florida and Michigan are included. Clinton is calling him on that. That is what Clinton is saying. Barack Obama, win the nomination WITH Michigan and Florida counting. If you can.

< Late Night: The Long Run | Obama Admits Error on Kennedy Family's Role in Bringing Father to U.S. >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Standing ovation!! (5.00 / 11) (#1)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 11:56:20 AM EST
    No need to waste my dailies in this thread.  You said it all.

    So much for journalism. (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by MarkL on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:02:32 PM EST
    BTD, do you know Josh? Have you ever emailed him?
    Many of us here have had email exchanges with Josh.
    His "explanations" of the Shuster post were pretty hilarious. A lot of "implicit" reasoning there, too!

    I do not know him (5.00 / 10) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:04:40 PM EST
    Though I did write a piece for TPM Cafe 2 years ago.

    I have lost all respect for him in this campaign. It really angers me what he has done - trade his well earned credibility to become what he is now.


    I sent him my longest, sourest email yet (4.87 / 8) (#7)
    by MarkL on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:13:47 PM EST
    last night. A couple of points:
    he must know that Clinton's health care plan in 1993 failed over the issue of mandates, with the insurance companies adamantly opposed. Josh must know this; furthermore, Obama's weak rhetoric on regulation should give one pause. He sounds most like a  Republican when he talks about the virtues of government regulation. Social Security is another big issue. Why doesn't TPM discuss Goolsbee's privatization plan, which has a mandatory first step of raising the payroll tax cap.
    And on and on.

    I happen to think that the failure to cover Kerry's and McCaskill's and Obama's racist-sounding gaffes is huge, even though it's a distasteful subject. Those remarks put the lie to the idea that the Clintons were engaged in race-baiting.
    The ONLY remarks that might count is Shaheen's.
    Josh's fury over Bill C. and the Jesse Jackson take was really astounding, as you may recall.


    and I had an exchange with Josh (5.00 / 4) (#12)
    by white n az on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:24:50 PM EST
    of about 5 e-mails back and forth on his stupid parsing of Clinton's letter to MSNBC where he ignorantly parsed it to mean that she was demanding that Schuster be fired.  Pissing into the wind.

    He doesn't get it. He doesn't believe that anyone else's opinions matter. That of course is his right...it's his site.

    But I don't have to go there, I didn't click the link referenced by BTD at the top of the diary. I don't go to DK any more and I don't go to MSNBC any more. That's my solution to their myopia.


    He parsed inconsistently. If you went with his (none / 0) (#16)
    by MarkL on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:26:52 PM EST
    micro-parsing, you MUST have concluded that a "genuine apology" from Shuster would have sufficed.
    He thought that was ludicrous, failing to accept a redudctio ad absurdum.

    I guess they don't care about November (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by nellre on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:07:56 PM EST
    Write off FL and I fear you write off the presidency. Don't they care?

    Obama's 48-State Strategy (5.00 / 5) (#42)
    by Athena on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 01:19:00 PM EST
    No, Obama's 48-state strategy is designed to throw up enough smoke and incense so nobody notices that 9% of the Democrats in the country did not participate.

    But we do.  And as I have posted before, Obama would rather rely on the superdelegates than submit to MI and FL voters.  What a great, confident stance for a Presidential candidate!  

    Trying to sneak into the nomination with 48 states may fool the MSM and the Oblogs, but it doesn't fool us.


    Josh (5.00 / 8) (#5)
    by standingup on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:12:08 PM EST
    pulled the same stunt with his "what Clinton really meant" interpretation with David Schuster's suspension from MSNBC.  I don't need Josh to tell me what Hillary is saying since I am more than capable of comprehending a rather straightforward statement.  

    Josh has shown problems... (5.00 / 7) (#6)
    by white n az on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:12:52 PM EST
    with parsing Hillary's words before...have you forgotten his stupid assertion that she was insisting that MSNBC fire David Schuster?

    As for Josh suffering from CDS, sure, nothing new there.

    and like DK, he has written off all notions of traffic from Clinton supporters, just as MSNBC has.

    and even worse, these Obama surrogates are demonstrating extraordinary skill in turning off Clinton voters which will ensure that Obama loses in November.

    The reason that the Kool-Aid metaphor is so appropriate is that like Jim Jones, these people are committing suicide.

    They can't help themselves. (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Canaan on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 05:31:46 PM EST
    "The reason that the Kool-Aid metaphor is so appropriate is that like Jim Jones, these people are committing suicide."

    Yes, for it looks to me like they have much more to lose from a McCain victory:

    (1) Reagan Democrats are not 'protest' voters.  Conservative/moderate Democrats aren't worried about a possible McCain win.

    (2) If Obama loses to McCain, he looks like another McGovern-Dukakis-Kerry style 'loser' -- because of his support from Kennedy-Kerry-Daschle (emblematic Dem 'losers').  It's yet another repudiation of the left, and the Democrats are branded as losers-in-perpetuity.

    However, even if McCain were to beat Clinton, (a) she's still the historic first viable woman and (b) the centrist Clintons still have a winning record (2 out of 3).  So it would just be the end of the Clinton winning streak, not the continuation of a Democratic losing streak.

    Though Obama's run is equally historic, his loss would be for more typical Dem reasons -- tagged as weak on security, doubts about his nationalism, perceived wimp factor, and repudiation of the left.

    I'm saying the downside to this intra-party knifefight is all on the left, not on the center.    To centrist Dems, McCain vs. Clinton is a win-win election.

    And before you say 'the economy' -- if the economy decided elections, the Democrats would have a better winning record over the past 40 years.


    I think at one time... (5.00 / 7) (#8)
    by Alvord on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:15:57 PM EST
    ... Josh Marshall had aspirations to make TPM a widely respected and legitimate news site. By his behavior during this primary season he has sure squandered whatever chance he had to make that happen.

    Ditto for the (none / 0) (#67)
    by mg7505 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:17:27 PM EST
    New York Times' and their Opinion columns. Once a great source of independent news analysis, now victim of a Clinton Derangement Syndrome pandemic.

    I dno't know about that. (none / 0) (#75)
    by BrandingIron on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 04:56:51 PM EST
    The Times endorsed Clinton.  Opinion pieces are just that;  opinion pieces.  Much like how HuffPo as we know it is Obamacentric, they still post commentary from the other side, like Taylor Marsh.

    What Marshall can't do (5.00 / 11) (#9)
    by frankly0 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:17:24 PM EST
    is give any account whereby it makes moral or political sense to exclude FL and MI and disenfranchise those voters from the decision of who the Democratic nominee should be.

    All he can do is fall back on his own interpretation of "the rules".

    He thinks the way kids in grade school might about the decision to include or exclude FL and MI: it's just "the rules", no nuance, no logic, no overarching explanation of why rules are put in place to begin with, whether they fairly apply in the case at hand, or whether even the interpretation of the rules is in truth correct.

    If he can't engage this question thoughtfully, of what earthly use is the man? If he can't put out the objections of the other side, and meet each of them squarely, why should anyone continue to respect him as any kind of pundit? And, clearly, it is exactly on that score that he utterly fails.

    Whatever people may think of BTD and Jeralyn, and their "bias", what can't be denied is that make a very serious attempt to engage the basic arguments on both sides. If they see a logical objection, they have their response. One may or may not agree with their response, but they take seriously the obligation to meet the argument.

    And that is what Josh won't or can't do. There was  a time I would have thought that he simply wouldn't do it, but could if he wanted to. Lately, I've been much more inclined to believe that he just doesn't have the cognitive engine required to see the force of objections to his point of view. The more I see him in action, the more he strikes me as someone who's just shallow, and glib, with an OK command of English -- enough to make him seem passable as a journalist -- but little else to recommend him.

    Just to add to my point (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by frankly0 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:25:22 PM EST
    one reason I think Josh Marshall does not engage these arguments is that he has no context in which he responds directly to objections -- which has always been one of the most frustrating things about TPM, and which it shares (one suspects by design) with MSM pundits.

    Essentially, Marshall spouts off any kind of incoherent and/or illogical and/or smearing nonsense he wants, and he is never held accountable. He can easily choose simply to ignore all the cogent objections he wants against his rants, and continue to rant in the same direction all he wants with impunity on his site.

    It's impossible not to see the arrogance that that approach has encouraged him to adopt. Unaccountability has that way with people of inadequate character.

    BTD and Jeralyn do often engage their commenters, and this keeps them honest and on top of the issues. It also allows them to develop the richness of their arguments because they have to accommodate legitimate objections, and build their case around those objections.


    That is a superb point: the lack of comments on (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by MarkL on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:28:04 PM EST
    TPM has prevented Marshall from getting the public feedback that would chasten him. Letters do know good, clearly, no more than they help with Joe Klein.

    But..but...comments take bandwidth (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by FlaDemFem on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:44:58 PM EST
    and besides, if one is right all the time, all feedback does is confuse the issue. Right?? He seems to have a touch, or more, of the Obama arrogance. It does seem to rub off on his supporters.

    Josh has always been arrogant. The problem is (none / 0) (#35)
    by MarkL on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:54:29 PM EST
    that he has taken his considerable abilities at reading texts to a ludicrous extreme.
    Remember that the crux of his argument on the Clinton letter on Shuster was that the word "temporary", in "temporary suspension" must have been there for a reason. The idea that it was emphatic and descriptive only could not penetrate his skull.
    In my opinion, the problem is not with his analysis, per se, but his judgment about when to use it, and what to cover. For example, when one of Hillary's advisers said something about Nazis in a conference call about health care, he was all over that.
    But why? The voters want someone with a good plan, not someone who never says "Nazi".
    When he did a great job was parsing Bush's statements over things that MATTERED: life and death issues connected with the Iraq war; the lies about WMD, etc.
    With Clinton and Shuster, did it really matter whether she wanted him fired? Of course not.
    Why belabor the point?

    I was going to argue about (none / 0) (#26)
    by Fabian on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:40:25 PM EST
    Joe [pause] Klein, but it's probably true that letters had less to do with any changes he makes than prominent blog posts like Glenn Greenwald.  When someone uses your own words, verbatim, to skewer you in public, that has to sting more than even an avalanche of emails from a bnuch of presumed nobodies..

    I think Josh reallky has no clue (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:34:54 PM EST
    about FL and MI. I think he just does not have a good grounding in the facts here. He decided not to pay attention to the story and it shows.

    One other point about TPM (none / 0) (#20)
    by frankly0 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:31:51 PM EST
    Why on earth is it that one doesn't have the minimal capability of directly responding to a front page post in comments on that post?

    Even MSM blogs allow that capability, and that kind of accountability.

    It's hard not to see the refusal of TPM to do so as a reflection of their basic arrogance. If they had any impulse to accountability, you'd think that they would make the effort to implement that minimal standard.


    Inscurity, not arrogance (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:37:27 PM EST
    He's put himself way, way out on a limb, as he did with the Iraq war.

    the rules (none / 0) (#78)
    by teachermom on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 05:18:27 PM EST
    As Donna Brazile said this morning, "It's all about the rules."

    and by the way... (5.00 / 9) (#10)
    by white n az on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:19:34 PM EST
    reports from Eschatonclearly discussing the damage done by various left-leaning blogs...Eric Boehlert is genuinely concerned...
    there's a portion of the blogosphere that has ignored that and there's a portion that has encouraged that. It's dangerous because the media criticism has to be consistent and relentless, and we can't very well say, "You can't go after our candidates ... except this one." I get nervous about pushback regarding disingenuous coverage - our response needs to be, "You can't treat Democrats this way." When people in the left blogosphere are quoting an anonymous Matt Drudge source, it makes me nervous.

    Kos and Josh not only don't get it, they will have blood on their hands when Obama loses in November

    Except, Of Course (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by The Maven on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:24:00 PM EST
    that virtually all of those who've been blinded by their Hillary hatred/Obama deification will place the blame for an Obama loss at the feet of Clinton and demand that she and her "DLC-type" supporters be drummed out of the party -- i.e., let the purges begin.

    Karl Rove, et al., couldn't have engineered this any better if they'd tried.


    Exactly. (none / 0) (#91)
    by madamab on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 12:09:18 PM EST
    One component of HDS is that ANYTHING before, during or after the primary season MUST be blamed on Hillary.

    Frighteningly, it's a variation on the Clinton Derangement Syndrome the rightwingers have had throughout the Bush years. "But-but-but Clinton!" was always their refrain whenever anyone would complain about some horrible thing Bush did.

    I really, really hate that people like JPM, Kos and Aravosis have harnessed the hatred that only Freepers used to show. It makes me sick, and the intellectual dishonesty is disgusting.


    I have seen (none / 0) (#90)
    by myed2x on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 11:27:08 AM EST
    quotes from Rove and Althouse here...pure hypocrisy.

    In August of 2004 (5.00 / 6) (#14)
    by Mike Pridmore on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:25:47 PM EST
    Josh Marshall supported Hillary's position on the AUMF vote and called Obama's position "willfully obtuse."  Since Obama banks his claim to better judgment, to make up for the experience he doesn't have, on his opposition to a yes vote on the AUMF, Josh seems to be on the wrong team here. (link)

    I think I've demurred from discussing or rather defending Kerry's position on this issue because I have an element of bias, since it is also my position. But as Kevin notes, whether or not you agree with that position, it is really not difficult to understand so long as you are not being willfully obtuse.

    Sometimes in baseball a batter decides to take a pitch. He's decided in advance that he's not going to swing no matter what comes down the pike. But in most cases, when a batter steps up to the plate, he doesn't decide whether he's going to swing until he sees the pitch. Only an idiot decides in advance not knowing what he's going to face. And yet this is roughly what the Bush camp says was the only reasonable, or I suppose manly, approach to the Iraq war.

    I see the war decision in very similar terms to this baseball analogy. Voting for the war resolution was not remotely the same thing as going to war at the first possible opportunity.

    Forcing inspections meant seeing what inspections would yield. And seeing what inspections would yield was the best insurance against getting ourselves into the current situation and finding that the WMD, which constituted the premise for the whole endeavor, didn't even exist.

    Why is Marshall having such a difficult time pretending that supporting Obama makes sense?  It's called cognitive dissonance.  Why is he choosing yet again to fly in the face of the truth with strange interpretations of actual events, as noted by BTD here, that he must know are laughable to any careful observer?  That's what I really want to know.

    Wow (none / 0) (#24)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:35:09 PM EST
    Thanks for that link.

    From a branding perspective, throwing half the party under the bus cause of the AUMF was always a non-starter.

    Now.  People like Marshall and John Kerry have swallowed and digested a piece of incorrect framing that will be paying off for Republicans for at least another decade.


    Tortured logic and tea leaves (5.00 / 6) (#15)
    by Anne on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:25:57 PM EST
    are the order of the day at TPM, sad to say...

    The truth is that Josh has to ignore what Clinton is saying, because if he doesn't, it makes Obama look really, really bad.

    Clinton knows something that Obama either doesn't know, or cannot see: that the legitimacy of the nomination depends on resolving the Florida and Michigan primaries before the convention.  In fact, the very outcome of the general election may depend on a pre-convention resolution.

    In my opinion, Clinton knows that whichever one of them is the nominee will need that nomination to truly be the will of the people - why is it so awful that she is willing to stay in it until the people have spoken?  I have seen nothing that indicates that she will not accept that decision, and do it with her usual grace - but I cannot say the same for Obama.  He's whining now, he's been talking out of both sides of his mouth for weeks about this, and I see him as being unable to swallow defeat and accept the will of the people if that is what happens.

    Clinton's being the adult - Obama's being the bratty kid having a tantrum because he's not getting his way.

    Sorry - but we've had almost 8 years of bratty behavior in the WH, and I'm ready for an adult.

    And he has already said that if (5.00 / 5) (#30)
    by FlaDemFem on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:51:54 PM EST
    he doesn't get the nomination this time, he won't run again. Something about not being the same people in a few years and losing touch with "ordinary" people along the way. Sounded more to me like a little kid saying he was going to take his ball and go home if he didn't get to set the rules for the game. Not the sort of statement I would expect from a dedicated public servant. I guess "hopes and dreams" have an expiration date. Who knew?

    The Blank Slate (5.00 / 4) (#43)
    by Athena on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 01:25:37 PM EST
    No - it's that he can't go another 4 years and avoid having a record.  He's got a clean slate now, because he's avoided tough fights and tough votes and the Gang of 14.  But he can't hide for another 4 years and show up without baggage.

    His candidacy is premised on a thin record and no distinctive ideas - so as to appeal to all people - what I'd call the opposite of leadership.  A rather passive man, now being viewed as the leader "we've all been waiting for."  It's almost comical.


    Yeah, but (none / 0) (#76)
    by BrandingIron on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 05:06:12 PM EST
    Obama responded to Tim Russert's vehement questioning in 2006 about not running for Pres in 2008 with a "I will not."  

    MR. RUSSERT: But there seems to be an evolution in your thinking. This is what you told the Chicago Tribune last month: "Have you ruled out running for another office before your term is up?" Obama answered, "It's not something I anticipate doing." But when we talked back in November of `04 after your election I said, "There's been enormous speculation about your political future. Will you serve your six-year term as United States senator from Illinois?" Obama, "Absolutely."

    SEN. OBAMA: I will serve out my full six-year term. You know, Tim, if you get asked enough, sooner or later you're going to get weary and you start looking for new ways of saying things. But my thinking has not changed.

    MR. RUSSERT: So you will not run for president or vice-president in 2008?

    SEN. OBAMA: I will not.

    He lied then, so who's to say he's not lying now?  Lying in the fashion of "Hurry up and vote for me now, you won't get another chance!" in order to maximize his votes?


    "Can have no oher meaning than" (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:30:24 PM EST
    has become Josh's favored pompous phrase when he's discussing Clinton.  It allows for no argument, no discussion, no differing point of view.  If you don't acknowledge his interpretation as the only legitimate possibility, then you're naive or don't get it or don't know what you're talking about, end of discussion, period, end, STFU and go away.

    Any time I see/hear that phrase, that X "can have no other meaning," I check to make sure I've still got my wallet in my pocket.

    Actuaslly the ONE meaning (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:32:39 PM EST
    it could NOT have is the one Marsha;; ascribes to it.

    It is an embarrassing post because he really does not know what has been happening on FL and MI.


    The sad part is (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by DaytonDem on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:40:56 PM EST
    they know in Florida and Michigan. Listening to Donna Brazile this morning was maddening. I have said before that the Republican ads write themselves in November against Obama...Announcer intones "He fought to keep your vote from counting and now he wants it. C'mon Senator Obama". We are DOA without Michigan and Florida.

    You listen to (none / 0) (#31)
    by kenoshaMarge on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:52:18 PM EST
    Donna Brazile? Oh you poor thing. Listening to her requires a suspension of your ability to process data, i.e. think. As in believing that she's neutral while she constantly and consistently shills for Obama.

    Just one more ethically challenged Democrat whose name no longer resides on my list of people I respect. It's getting to be a rather short list.


    It wasn't easy (none / 0) (#36)
    by DaytonDem on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 01:05:39 PM EST
    but I stayed for Paul Krugman.

    Here is my interpretation (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by lilburro on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:45:25 PM EST
    of the Obama stance on the electoral issues of this primary:

    Pledged delegates are more important than the popular vote.
    Number of states is more important than state "weight."
    Caucuses are as legitimate as primaries.
    MI/FL do not need to revote because it's just a primary and this is a DNC thing and what the DNC wants to do it should do.
    Independents and Republicans should help choose our nominee.

    The last two are what is most confusing to me.  Arguments against revotes in MI/FL boil down to DNC rules and DNC authority.  It is treated as some kind of 'in-house' problem.  And yet our primary process has not been a strictly 'in-house' affair.  Independents and Republicans have added themselves into the mix.  They have no affiliation with the party.

    The DNC hardly has a leg to stand on as far as considering their punishment to MI/FL just.  As someone else said above, the ethical thing to do now is revote.  Make this bigger than the Party squabbles.

    Obama is probably thankful he never had to campaign in MI and FL from the start.

    Well if Dean and Obama (none / 0) (#32)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:52:50 PM EST
    Did ever have a conversation that went something like this:  "Dude, we can work this so that FL and MI never counts."  

    "Cool.  Let's do it."


    Josh & TPM have become . . . (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Doc Rock on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:53:13 PM EST
    . . . an Obama advocating spin machine rather than the investigative,balanced blog with a liberal view.   It is a shame that any objectivity has sailed out the window in favor of spin, spin, spin.

    It's worse than embarrassing nonsense... (5.00 / 4) (#34)
    by blueteam on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:53:35 PM EST
    It sucks a lot of energy out of the blogworld every time one of the well-knowners does this. It gives permission and credence to a hundred smaller voices who will rush out to spread the word of Josh Marshall!!! I really hope you're right, BTD, that this kind of thing will cost people the credibility it should.

    Fuggedaboutit (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Talktruth on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 01:41:09 PM EST
    BO will lose, if all the votes are counted, and he and all his backers know that.  If they can't win, they will take their ball and go home.  Problem is, it's not their ball to take, and they're about the find that out the hard way...

    I have a question whidh I think may help (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by MarkL on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 01:45:29 PM EST
    give some perspective on the current impasse.
    Obama supporters often speak of the scary "Clinton machine", but I'm not sure of whom they speak.
    It is quite obvious which party brahmins support Obama: Kerry, Kennedy, Durbin, Leahy, Pelosi, Dean, Dodd, etc.
    Who are the heavy hitters at the national level who are strong, VOCAL Clinton advocates?

    This Week....i (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by bjorn on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 01:49:22 PM EST
    Donna Brazile gave a very "insiders" view of why Michigan and Florida have not been counted or have not revoted and Paul Krugman told her that her "insiders" view was exactly the problem.  Krugman said there are millions of democrats, regular voters, who don't think this process has been fair and don't see how you get a fair result without including MI and FL.  I am new to this, and definitely not an insider, but this is what has irritated me over the last several weeks.  Not many "insiders" are talking about the perceptions of us regular voters out here.  I understand that if the situation was flipped Clinton may have tried to block revotes but the reaction would be the same, at least from the perspective of this regular voter!

    Krugman did? (none / 0) (#69)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:22:49 PM EST

    No kidding.

    How many women on Marshall's staff? (5.00 / 3) (#62)
    by shoephone on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:00:24 PM EST
    My friends and I noticed a long time ago that TPM employs very few women. Out of a staff of 13 people, only two are women, and neither are reporter-bloggers. Therefore, it's only men on the front page, and I recall that has always been the case.

    Gee, do you think that has anything to do with the incessant Hillary-bashing?

    rather than glorify (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by white n az on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 05:40:41 PM EST
    comments by halstoon and 1jpb (who appears to be another account for 1jane)...

    no matter how many times and how many different ways you try to restate the same thing in different ways, Hillary stays in until she decides not to stay in.

    The selection isn't official until the convention.

    If it is Obama's desire to prevent the seating of the FL and MI delegates, he has ever right to do that but he does it at his peril.

    If his surrogates believe that they can bully her out of the race, she made it clear in the Washington Post today that she has absolutely no intentions of doing so and DEEPLY resent the efforts from those doing so.

    If Obama is intent on winning the nomination at the loss of MI, FL voters and a considerable portion of Clinton supporters, he is clearly on path to do exactly that and the surrogates for his campaign are effectively providing a clinic on how to lose by winning.

    I could come back with all sorts of (none / 0) (#84)
    by halstoon on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 06:59:59 PM EST
    negative things about Clinton, but I won't. I'll just say what I've been saying the last few days.

    Sen. Clinton has said she will contest the last 10 primaries. Her supporters should urge people to vote for her in those contests. Sen. Obama's supporters should urge people to vote for him. At some point, it will become clear that Sen. Clinton has either succeeded or failed in her quest to overtake Obama. At that point, whether it be she or he who is the nominee, they will seat FL and MI and we will all go on together.

    Since she has committed herself to this race, Sen. Obama should do the same. In the end, the best nominee will win.


    More from the Post article... (none / 0) (#11)
    by lilburro on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:23:49 PM EST

    "'His campaign rejected the plan that was put forward," she said. "For the life of me, what Barack was afraid of in Michigan I will never understand.'

    Obama spokesman Bill Burton said in an e-mail: 'Sen. Obama is actually interested in and working towards a solution, unlike Clinton, who is trying to change the rules she agreed to and is more interested in potshots than solving this problem.'"

    What Obama personally said... (5.00 / 4) (#17)
    by white n az on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:27:50 PM EST
    about the revote plan that was proposed and ultimately voted down in Michigan..."It's complicated"

    This from the man who is professing to 'bring us together' and provide leadership to solving the nation's problems.

    We heard Obama's solution...a 50/50 split.



    Isn't that 50/50 split (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by facta non verba on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 01:33:03 PM EST
    his solution to every problem?

    A month or so ago I got an email from the Human Rights Council that was a letter from Obama on gay issues. For six paragraphs, he waxed eloquent on gay rights and then came the clincher -"we have to listen to the other side." What other side? James Dobson? The FRC? 50/50 gets me nothing.


    The wisdom of (none / 0) (#65)
    by nemo52 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:03:49 PM EST
    Solomon, splitting the baby in half.

    Heh (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:33:52 PM EST
    Yes, the resolution Obama wants does not involve the voters of MI and FL. That is the problem.

    To be a legitimate winner t... (none / 0) (#38)
    by scorbs on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 01:08:44 PM EST
    He really must win the nomination cleanly not by sleight of hand tricks which he is full of so far (i'm angry about the caucuses and the gaming that went on in them -- all in red states Dems will never win in the Fall too, and he's basing his claim of winning the nomination on these).  That means FL/MI must be counted for his win to be legit.  He can't be the nominee with only 48 states counted or by stealing Clinton's votes in those 2 states -- it's stealing.

    1jb (none / 0) (#39)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 01:10:22 PM EST
    Your comment was deleted because the bulk of it was an off topic attack on Bill Clinton.

    Can anyone please provide this ... (none / 0) (#40)
    by Tortmaster on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 01:10:23 PM EST
    ... information: What is Hillary Clinton's exact plan for a re-vote in Michigan? I have searched the internet using the search words "Clinton, plan, re-vote, Michigan," and I come up with bupkis.

    Since BTD has mentioned no less than 5 times, in the original post, that Obama has blocked the re-vote plan, can someone please:

    1. Tell me the name of somebody other than an "unnamed source" who is claiming that Obama is blocking a Michigan re-vote?

    2. What is the exact re-vote plan for Michigan promoted by the HRC campaign?

    3. How does that plan, promoted by the HRC campaign, if one exists, deal with Democrats who voted in the Republican primary?

    4. Would such a plan, if it exists, grant amnesty from state law to Democratic voters who voted in the Republican primary to allow them to vote in two primaries this year?

    5. Does her plan, if it exists, include a way to keep Republicans from voting in the re-vote?

    6. Is the HRC re-vote plan, if it exists, a mail-in vote or something else?

    7. Can someone point out exactly what Obama's criticisms of the plan, if it existed, were?

    8. Did the Michigan legislature actually pass a re-vote plan?

    9. Did the Michigan Democratic Party actually endorse a specific re-vote plan?


    By the numbers (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by badger on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:00:19 PM EST
    1. Me
    2. The bill that was in the Michigan legislature
    3. It would've excluded them, but a Federal judge ruled a few days ago that the voter lists couldn't be disclosed, so the point is moot.
    4. No - the principle is "one person, one vote". Their vote counted in the GOP primary.
    5. See 3
    6. Something else
    7. Do your own research - it's easily available
    8. No
    9. Yes

    There's plenty of discussion of this in past threads. Go back and read it - it answers all of your questions.

    I see ... (none / 0) (#74)
    by Tortmaster on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 03:31:01 PM EST

    1. For the charge of blocking the votes, you have presented TWO unnamed sources. Case dismissed! Even Judge Judy would tell you that even just one letter, campaign memo, sound byte, or e-mail would help with your case, but you can't provide even that.

    2. The one drafted by the same people who got the primary vacated in the first place? You mean HRC didn't have a plan of her own? Why doesn't she have a plan on the table right now? She waited until just over a couple weeks ago to begin asking for re-votes (while still saying that the Michigan primary was "fair" and the delegates should be seated as is), so don't you think she needs to have an actual alternate plan RIGHT NOW?  

    3. So, voter "disenfranchizing" is important depending upon whose ballot is involved? Why did it not bother HRC back when she said that Michigan and Florida would not be counted? Did you support HRC's statement at THAT time?  

    4. Is your desire to uphold the "franchise" for Democratic voters only dependent on if they voted for HRC? I see no tears shed here.

    5. Same answer for #'s 3 & 4 above.

    6. Well, I would think she'd have another plan out in the media by now.

    7. You can't tell me a single criticism that Obama had for the re-vote plan? I'm not talking about pro-Obama bloggers, or speculation from a commentator on this site; rather, I'm looking for anything that Barack Obama had a problem with?

    8. Ahhhh. So, Michigan DIDN'T pass re-vote legislation. Was Senator Obama leader of the Michigan Senate at the time? Did he cast the deciding vote in the Michigan committee? Why would you expect the same legislature that got Michigan into the fix in the first place to get 'em out?

    9. I'm sorry, but I didn't see anywhere that the Michigan Democratic Party endorsed the actual re-vote plan in the Michigan Legislature. Maybe it happened, but I haven't seen the press release.  

    If your questions were (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by BrandingIron on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 05:14:44 PM EST
    rhetorical--which from your answer to b makes them appear to be, since you had all of your answers--then you're just wasting our time.

    Count me in on number #1 as well, and I daresay count BTD and Jeralyn in on #1, too.  Most of us who've been following the articles agree that Obama's blocked the revote.


    I'm of an open mind... (none / 0) (#89)
    by myed2x on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 11:22:49 AM EST
    ...and was waiting for someone to pose the questions above...you couldn't answer them, minus saying look it up yourself, but really, if you were on this and as passionate as you seem (and legitimate) you would have been able to rattle off answers to all those questions, or if not, provide links to material that would.  The fact that you couldn't, minus the insulting answers you provided really, really speaks volumes. You'd rather deflect than support your position and/or convince someone of a different mindset that it is legitimate.

    Parsing (none / 0) (#41)
    by 1jpb on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 01:18:25 PM EST
    Josh's use of "implicit" is reasonable.  Your argument is reasonable.  But "implicit" is itself a flexible word, judgment is implied.

    Regarding your statement:

        Clinton wants revotes. Obama does not.

    In FL the Chair of the D Party said that revotes were impossible, regardless of BHO or HRC.  

    In MI the BO side is open to revotes, e.g. a caucus.  But, they do want to minimize the harm done to their supporters who trusted everyone (including HRC and Ickes) who promised that the MI vote wouldn't count.  This motivated them to go for a second choice or be strategic in the R primary (don't forget BO wasn't even on the ballot.)  32% of the R vote in MI was Ds and Is.

    Remember HRC has evolved.  At first she was for not counting MI and FL at all, then seating as is, then she was AGAINST a revote (USA Today interview), then fifteen minutes later she was for a revote.

    Looking at the complete record, denying that the pro-HRC MI plan is less political maneuvering than anything done by the BO side is difficult for me to understand.  If the HRC side was consistent they would have a better claim.  But, they've been all over the map.

    Replacing a primary (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by lilburro on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 01:27:41 PM EST
    with a caucus makes no sense.  Unless you want to illustrate how caucuses dampen turnout.

    I'm a big (none / 0) (#49)
    by 1jpb on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 01:38:59 PM EST
    BO supporter, but I will admit that HRC isn't the only one looking for a political advantage.  I just wish some on the HRC side would be more willing to realize that BO isn't the only one looking for political advantage.

    The damage is done.  Nothing will turn back the clock and make this situation fair.

    The FL and MI leadership caused this.  They were told what would happen and they went ahead anyway.  Yes Rs control in FL.  Yes the DNC were the ones who enforced the rules, which was necessary to prevent a much worse scheduling disaster.  BO isn't to blame, and neither is HRC.

    Theses states' leaderships caused this.  And, nothing can roll back time.  Place blame where it belongs.


    I know they're both looking for a pol. advantage. (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by lilburro on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 01:48:54 PM EST
    But the facts remain.  MI and FL held primaries.  A fair revote would mean two more primaries.  Both candidates had the option of supporting this in public, and helping to get it pushed through.  The DNC blessed the MI revote idea, saying it met their standards.  Hillary blessed it.  Obama did not.  One of the biggest caveats attached to a revote in either state was that without candidate approval, it would not or should not go forward.  Obama said he would do whatever the DNC found appropriate.   They found the MI revote plan appropriate.  Ergo...but no.

    Obama is digging himself into a hole.  That is what he is doing right now, and it is not a political advantage.  Let's not forget what it was like before the MI/FL revote plans were cast to the wayside.  Everyone was waiting for the candidates' response.  Obama did not give the response necessary for it to go through.  He does shoulder more blame, because he did have the power to help this thing on.


    I do---with the DNC. And I blame Brazile (none / 0) (#50)
    by MarkL on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 01:40:57 PM EST
    for enforcing the rules in an arbitrary and partisan manner.

    That's (none / 0) (#54)
    by 1jpb on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 01:47:53 PM EST
    fair, but Ickes is just as responsible for creating these inflexible rules.

    They were NOT inflexible, that's the point. (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by MarkL on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 01:51:00 PM EST
    By the way, MI and FL lost the ability to influence the later primaries, which was the reason for maintaining a schedule in the first place. Why not seat them now?

    You and (none / 0) (#63)
    by 1jpb on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:02:00 PM EST
    I will need to disagree on that.

    The stripping of delegates was certain.  But, there was always the assumption that the delegates would be seated, even though they were included in the required delegate count (i.e. 2024 doen't include FL and MI.)

    BO has been on record for a long time saying that FL and MI will be seated.  This isn't a point of contention.


    I'll say it. Of course she's in it (none / 0) (#68)
    by nycstray on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:18:03 PM EST
    'for something'. BUT! She's also on the right side of the issue and sees that fighting for those voters WILL matter in Nov. Obama coming in late in the game on it (as a fighter, not a passive supporter) or having them seated when it no longer counts is pure BS and will be remembered. She may be able to undo some of the damage if he's the nom, but I don't know if even he is a smooth enough BSer to do it on his own.

    HRC and BO's positions are irrelevant. (5.00 / 5) (#48)
    by Lysis on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 01:36:44 PM EST
    That's the whole problem with this tit-for-tat.   It doesn't matter what Hillary's position has been all along, or what Barack's preferences and positions are, on the FL/MI situations.

    What matters is that the voters who expressed a preference at the ballot box are given a say in the process, even if it means revotes.

    To have them not count at all, without revotes, is to throw their votes away.

    I cannot believe this debate is even going on within the Democratic party.  It's always been our side that has been hurt the most by various methods of disenfranchisement.   Supreme courts stopping recounts, polling places being moved, innocent citizens listed as felons.   Our party is supposed to the one that fights for all of those people that are being told to "shut up" to have their voices heard:  the poor and working class, women, gays, ethnic and religious minorities.  

    To hear leaders talking about "rules are rules" and calling millions of voters participants in a "beauty contest" is maddening enough, but for those same leaders to not ensure that some legitimate way of hearing those voters is provided for, is beyond disheartening.  It's fundamentally and morally wrong.


    You would (none / 0) (#53)
    by 1jpb on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 01:46:21 PM EST
    be surprised how much I agree with you.

    The problem is that nobody has suggested a plan that will reverse this situation, so that all of those who wanted BO and all of those who wanted HRC can be counted.

    A solution could be developed if the first votes hadn't been cast yet.  But, they have, and they were cast with everybody knowing that the votes wouldn't count for Ds.  As a result the HRC plan would (as required) leave out a lot of BO supporters, who trusted everyone (including HRC) who promised the first vote wouldn't count.

    This is broken beyond repair.  Blame the state leadership, they broke it beyond repair.


    How can you say (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by lilburro on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 01:50:38 PM EST
    it was disproportionately BO voters who voted in the Republican primary?  The uncommitted = Obama idea gained a lot of traction in MI.

    Obama's surrogates campaigned heavily (none / 0) (#60)
    by MarkL on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 01:51:58 PM EST
    for him in MI, urging 'uncommitted' votes.
    Likewise, in Fl, Obama saturated the airwaves of the entire state for WEEKS before the primary.

    That's why (none / 0) (#66)
    by 1jpb on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:07:11 PM EST
    this thing is broken.  There were a lot of influences.  BO has good I support, they may have gone to the R side for a second choice.  Also, there was the strategic vote i.e. Kos.

    My point is that once we had a vote where everyone promised the vote wouldn't count, nothing would roll back time to make a fair contest.  We can't now say, "well we were lying when we said the first vote didn't count, you're screwed, you can't participate."


    Didn't (none / 0) (#64)
    by 1jpb on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:03:27 PM EST
    mean to imply they were all for BO.  I would flatly reject such an argument.

    But BO removed his name from the ballot (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Manuel on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:43:15 PM EST
    to get a political advantage.  He wasn't required to do that.  If he hadn't, this argument wouldn't work now as you could assume that "strategic" voters would be evenly split between the candidates.

    BTW Has Kos ever come out and said he was wrong to encourage it.


    I'm no (none / 0) (#72)
    by 1jpb on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:49:38 PM EST
    Kos expert, but I don't get the impression that he's very quick to acknowledge an error.  I could be wrong.

    It's not "HRC's plan" (none / 0) (#94)
    by cmugirl on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 02:01:28 PM EST
    It's the DNC rules (you know, those pesky things that Obama keeps saying HRC doesn't want to follow) that say that if you voted in one party's primary in a given election cycle, you cannot vote in the other party's primary.  Simple - so Obama is blocking the revote because he doesn't want to follow the rules, see?

    Krugman has "blind loyalty" to clinton? (none / 0) (#47)
    by MarkL on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 01:36:04 PM EST
    That must explain why he favored Edwards' plans.
    You write

    He doesn't write dishonestly "objective" opinion pieces (at least to the degree certain self-described nonpartisan bloggers do).

    Um, that is EXACTLY the issue. He does so on an almost daily basis, while claiming that he actually has no favorite.

    You're 75% right BTD (none / 0) (#55)
    by AF on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 01:48:32 PM EST
    You're right, of course, that FL and MI are not yet resolved, and that nothing Hillary said suggests she would stay in the race if Obama wins irrespective of FL and MI.

    Josh is right, though, that Clinton seems to be promising to go to the convention unless FL and MI are resolved "on terms the Clinton campaign finds acceptable."  Because they cannot be resolved before the convention unless both campaigns agree.  

    What Hillary seems to be saying, then, is if after the primaries there is any chance that she could still win the nomination through some combination of FL, MI, and super delegates, she will take the matter to the convention.  

    I don't blame her for saying that now, but it would be unfortunate if it actually happened.  All the relevant information will be in by June 7.  There is no reason a resolution can't be worked out by July 1.

    I love how when Obama wins at the politics (none / 0) (#73)
    by halstoon on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 03:14:19 PM EST
    a lot of people here just come unglued.

    As Obama pointed out to Anderson Cooper, "I understand the politics of it, but let's be clear that it's politics."

    What are the chances that Clinton would make such an admission? As Obama points out, Sen. Clinton had no issues with FL & MI when she was going to be the nominee on Feb. 6. It was not until it became clear that she could not win without them that her sudden deep and entrenched passion for their voices bubbled up.

    In FL, the state itself determined that a revote was not possible since state laws essentially forbade any outside group from running an election, and the state refuses to run their own re-vote.

    In MI, Sen. Obama pointed out that with only one major Democrat on the ballot, lots and lots of Democrats voted in the GOP primary, a contest that did count, because their own contest did not. To hold a revote would disenfranchise all those people, but they are clearly not important to Sen. Clinton. There were lots of other hurdles to holding a revote, including the legalities of having the elections paid for by private citizens or the campaigns. If Clinton or the DNC or MI can come up with a reasonable solution, Sen. Obama has said he will sign on. He has also said he'll abide by the rulings of the credentials committee if it comes to that.

    More importantly, he has made it clear that as the presumptive nominee he will seat delegations from both FL and MI so they can participate in other important party business in Denver.

    Again (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by lilburro on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 05:50:20 PM EST
    The DNC approved the Michigan revote.  

    Over and over again here at TL demonstrations have been made of acceptable ways to run an election.  A mail-in revote was one.  The Justice Department approved Internet voting.  Obama supporters now get to point fingers at others since the heat isn't on as hot as before, but I remember, every step of the way, Obama's surrogates delaying, blocking, quibbling...knowingly thwarting revotes.

    The DNC approved the Michigan revote.

    Obama had the power to help make this revote happen.  Instead, his team took the stance:  we'll wait for the DNC while knowing that the DNC's position was, we'll wait for the candidates.

    Then the MI revote plan was approved by the DNC.

    Did he accept it?  As he said he would?  No.

    Let us also remember the screaming and carrying on that happened when Clinton DID acknowledge the election in FL.  Laughably, MSNBC ignored it.  But Senator Clinton flew down and incorporated the Floridian Dems into her coalition.  Concern for FL is not new from her.  As BDB shows above, neither is concern for MI.

    I hope he does seat the delegations from MI and FL.  Works for me - seat 'em as they voted.  Might mean Hillary is the nominee though.  Obama is digging a hole.


    coming unglued? (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by Imelda Blahnik2 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 07:46:26 PM EST
    Um, actually no. A lot of us are simply pointing out that it's politically dangerous and idiotic for Obama and his supporters to block revotes in MI and FL. He's a politician. It's just politics. Fine.I've been saying that all along to starry-eyed Obama supporters who believe he is "new politics," something different. But is it astute politics to prevent the voters of MI and FL from participating in the nomination? It may be clever in the short term, viz. the nomination, but come the General Election, and in future elections, voters of those states will probably have bitter memories of getting the shaft from Dean & Co. And they won't make distinctions among candidates - all Dems will be suspect.

    Bob Somerby (none / 0) (#86)
    by gish720 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 09:37:28 PM EST
    has made a point for a long time that Josh is mostly looking to get ahead in the MSM and sits quietly by while many dems are trashed.  I noticed a while back that Josh was giving Obama leeway on the Social Security issue.  I wrote him about it and got a very defensive email back.  I let him know how disappointed I've been with his blog and his Hillary bashing...he responded to my email by saying I was writing hate mail.  Jeeze, it was NOT hate mail.  Just a disagreement. He's massively defensive to put it mildly.

    A while back, I emailed Josh (none / 0) (#87)
    by ding7777 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 10:32:55 PM EST
    I said I was disappointed in his Hillary distortions and thought he lost credibilty, which would take time to regain.

    His response - "I don't respond to insults"


    Drink the Cole Kool aid youngun (none / 0) (#92)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:19:27 PM EST
    Do you have something of SUBSTANCE to add to this ad hom attack?

    For ionstance, do you question that a revote in Fl and MI would avoid a convention fight? Do you question that Obama blocked revotes?

    Can you think your way out of a paper bag or is the kool aid to effing strong for you?

    Man, the idiots, yeah you, are out in force, led by their idiot leader (nutpick this one John) John Cole.

    Sheesh (none / 0) (#93)
    by Jack Roy on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:20:50 PM EST
    Saying "[Obama] has fought against revotes" or "Obama's blocking of the revotes in FL and MI" doesn't actually make it true.  There's enough ground for disagreement on whether or not to hold new contests, whether they ought to be primaries or caucuses, and who's going to pay for them, that we don't need to add these false charges to the mix.

    Obama didn't block new elections.  It's simply dishonest to suggest otherwise.