home

Obama, CNN, NBC Do Not Count Florida and Michigan

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:24:21 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg This!! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

CNN, along with NBC, at the behest of the Barack Obama campaign, will pretend Florida and Michigan do not exist. They will declare that Barack Obama has won a majority of the pledged delegates in the Dem race. They will declare that 2.3 million voters in Florida and Michigan do not exist. This is not only outrageous of these news organizations, it is monumentally stupid of the Obama campaign.

I have stated repeatedly that I believe that Barack Obama will almost certainly be the nominee. That he will capture a majority of the pledged delegates. But he is pissing away Florida and making trouble for himself in Michigan he simply does not need. All to avoid one bad night of news coverage?

He has handed Hillary Clinton the most appealing battle cry a politician could possibly have - count the votes. Donna Brazile and Keith Olbermann and the other Obama surrogates can scream about the RULZ. Hillary Clinton can fight for the votes!

Just a supremely stupid move by the Barack Obama campaign.

By Big Tent Democrat

Comments now closed.

< Final Kentucky Results Thread | Obama To Sort Of Declare Victory Tonight? >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Obama, CNN, NBC Do Not Count Florida and Michigan | 207 comments (207 topical)
    As I Said Last Night (5.00 / 11) (#1)
    by talex on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:26:22 PM EST
    "There Are No Red States or Blue States - but there are States that don't count" - Barack Obama
    Do you mean caucus states? (none / 0) (#68)
    by riddlerandy on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:53:15 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    caucus states (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by talex on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:02:01 PM EST
    with official voter counts do count. Caucus states with estimates don't count because every estimate I see is off from other estimates. Whose estimate do you count? How about my estimate will that do?

    [ Parent ]
    Anyone know if FLA and MI SD's count? (none / 0) (#71)
    by Shainzona on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:53:42 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Not according to the DNC (none / 0) (#74)
    by ruffian on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:55:21 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    May 31 (none / 0) (#113)
    by Step Beyond on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:08:14 PM EST
    The Florida appeal by Ausman asks that the SDs count. So we'll find out then. But of course, if they aren't seated then, it can be taken up again at the convention.

    [ Parent ]
    Quotes (none / 0) (#139)
    by decih on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:20:49 PM EST
    Double quotes for an actual quote. Single quotes if you're conveying a general message. Are you using a verbatim quote?

    [ Parent ]
    LMAO (5.00 / 2) (#144)
    by themomcat on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:24:04 PM EST
    What are you the "punctuation police"?
    / "By the pricking of my thumbs, something wicked this way comes." Macbeth, Wm. Shakespeare
    [ Parent ]
    MY bad (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by themomcat on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:28:52 PM EST
    forgot a comma. ;-)
    / "By the pricking of my thumbs, something wicked this way comes." Macbeth, Wm. Shakespeare
    [ Parent ]
    I don't get it (5.00 / 14) (#2)
    by Coldblue on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:28:26 PM EST
    FL/MI are likable enough.

    They are formidible opponents. (5.00 / 7) (#36)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:43:09 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Do they get (5.00 / 4) (#51)
    by janarchy on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:47:20 PM EST
    down periodically?

    [ Parent ]
    maybe it is bad breath. breath mints (snark) (none / 0) (#160)
    by hellothere on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:06:30 PM EST
    should do the trick. all that toothpaste out there. i feel positive now. we'll get the delegates(FL/Michigan) a make over and they'll fit in with the kool kids.

    [ Parent ]
    I think they just need (none / 0) (#176)
    by janarchy on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:15:23 PM EST
    more lattes. Or Kool-Aid. Or both.

    [ Parent ]
    we can mix corn mash with the lattes(snark) (none / 0) (#193)
    by hellothere on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:23:04 AM EST
    for all the bitter hicks that'll be trying to sneak it don't you know. they'll need it.

    [ Parent ]
    For the first time in my adult life (5.00 / 9) (#63)
    by ruffian on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:51:55 PM EST
    I'm proud of FL and MI

    [ Parent ]
    LMFAO (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by pantsuit chic on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:02:01 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    It's just so depressing (none / 0) (#196)
    by IzikLA on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:51:40 AM EST
    The FL and MI fiasco has already caused irreparable damage to Clinton's campaign.  It allowed them all to form the narrative against her that they did, and it took away any sort of momentum or mathematical advantage that she ever could have claimed.

    Clinton, as a candidate, is becoming more phenomenal by the day, and that is the real shame in all of this.  

    [ Parent ]

    Dodd is now being (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by Stellaaa on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:28:28 PM EST
    a dweeb.  Claiming that  the majority has spoken and now the SDs have to do what they said.

    I guess only counting 48 (5.00 / 5) (#8)
    by cawaltz on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:31:02 PM EST
    states is okay with Dodd. It's a darn shame. I admired his stand on FISA.

    [ Parent ]
    I Think We Have A Classic Case of "The (5.00 / 8) (#13)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:32:37 PM EST
    Invasion Of The Body Snatchers".  What the hell has happened to these people?

    [ Parent ]
    dodd was running (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by sancho on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:59:19 PM EST
    for president then. he did not really mean it. but he got a few campaign dollars and some nice press for seeming to stand for something other than being a u. s. senator.

    [ Parent ]
    He was actually my (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:31:51 PM EST
    first presidential choice.  Boy was I stupid.

    [ Parent ]
    awwww, we all make mistakes, but look at the (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:34:03 PM EST
    recovery you have made.

    Donna Brazile is saying obama and shellie are in IA because of the fond memories they have of the state....BLECH

    [ Parent ]

    I bet it's where they'll buld White House Two (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Ellie on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:55:57 PM EST
    Instead of clearing brush like the Connecticut Cowboy did on Rancho Shambolico, I wonder what Obama will get up to on his Iowa Farm. (Romping through plastic corn? Cavorting with livestock besides the swine at the trough?)

    [ Parent ]
    No, Rezko has a nice piece of land in Illinois (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by ruffian on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:12:35 PM EST
    I feel sure

    [ Parent ]
    Is it anywhere near Whitewater? (1.00 / 0) (#129)
    by riddlerandy on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:14:27 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Someone is stuck (5.00 / 0) (#197)
    by IzikLA on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:54:19 AM EST
    In the early 90's.  That ship has sailed.  I suggest you get over it.  Or at the very least get a new talking point.

    [ Parent ]
    Same for Rezko (none / 0) (#207)
    by minordomo on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:20:29 AM EST
    Obama has addressed that issue in full - it's a retired talking point, unless you like living in the past.

    [ Parent ]
    And David Gergon questioned that move given (4.00 / 1) (#147)
    by zfran on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:28:14 PM EST
    the blow-out in KY. He said it didn't seem like such a good move.

    [ Parent ]
    Hey (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by cawaltz on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:45:48 PM EST
    I actually believed that Edwards would sta in the race and that he would stay out of the Clinton/Obama primary. Don't feel bad.

    [ Parent ]
    I noticed that. (5.00 / 7) (#4)
    by Molly Pitcher on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:28:42 PM EST
    So I muted CNN until Clinton appeared in Ky; after her speech, I turned the TV off.  Can't stop 'em from being dumb, but I don't have to watch or listen.

    i switch channels so often now i (none / 0) (#161)
    by hellothere on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:07:51 PM EST
    had to get new batteries.

    [ Parent ]
    Another Supremely Stupid Move/n\t (5.00 / 5) (#5)
    by Boo Radly on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:29:12 PM EST


    If I were a bettin' man (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:30:08 PM EST
    I'd say that Gore will come out for Obama tomorrow.

    Of course, I'm neither a bett-er, nor a man, but it's my guess.

    That has been the pattern (5.00 / 4) (#15)
    by ineedalife on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:33:11 PM EST
    If he doesn't, then I think Obama may be spent.

    [ Parent ]
    I hope not. (5.00 / 4) (#42)
    by ghost2 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:44:36 PM EST
    I have always respected Gore.  He has written a book called on the media.  He was subject to a media campaign against him as nasty as this.  In fact, Hillary has gotten the full Gore treatment.

    I don't think he would.
     

    [ Parent ]

    Oh please. My last hero. I don't think I could (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by derridog on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:07:13 PM EST
    take it.

    [ Parent ]
    I'll put Gore's book in the recycling bin (none / 0) (#138)
    by Lisa on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:20:30 PM EST
    if he does.

    Please, leave those of us leaving the party with some semblance of decency to remember.

    [ Parent ]

    you are a man? (none / 0) (#67)
    by ghost2 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:53:01 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I said (none / 0) (#79)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:56:24 PM EST
    that I'm neither a bett-er nor a man

    [ Parent ]
    What A Freaking Bunch Of Losers....They (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:30:30 PM EST
    better enjoy obama while they can.

    Howard Fineman and Harold Ford and Joe Scarborough
    are saying obama made a mistake not being in KY.

    They were pretty convincing (5.00 / 7) (#40)
    by aquarian on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:43:59 PM EST
    The Obama campaign should have contested WV and KY.  I don't care if you are going to get shellacked -- I will give you points for showing up and trying to convince voters you care about their interests.  Not showing up is a slap, and voters will carry the sting in November.

    Fiddling while Rome burns.

    [ Parent ]

    Leaders Lead (5.00 / 6) (#55)
    by BDB on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:48:38 PM EST
    Obama does not.  If he did, I'd be voting for him or at least not so unhappy at the prospect of his nomination.

    [ Parent ]
    Actually, BO is not counting 4 states... (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Shainzona on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:56:17 PM EST
    WV, Kentucky, Fla and MI.

    He's down to a 46 state strategy (or, 53 state strategy if you know that there are 57 states).

    [ Parent ]

    Olbermann wouldn't appreciate that (none / 0) (#66)
    by bridget on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:53:00 PM EST
    bet he wasn't around when they said that

    [ Parent ]
    Guess it is time for BTD... (5.00 / 6) (#10)
    by stevenb on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:31:55 PM EST
    to "choose" to support Senator Clinton. As a champion of democracy BTD, how can you stand behind Obama trashing Democracy when it doesn't favor him reaching his goal?  Just what is enevitability anyway?

    I see this as a great moment for Americans to stand up for principles in place of media-created end results.

    I stand behind her fight for Florida and Michigan (5.00 / 13) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:33:06 PM EST
    all the way to the Convention.

    [ Parent ]
    It will not get that far (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by andgarden on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:35:49 PM EST
    Gloria Borger pointed out tonight that Obama's best move is to just give Hillary what she wants. He'll still win anyway. (Unless more North Carolina style polls come out. . )

    [ Parent ]
    That would have been his best move weeks ago (5.00 / 7) (#89)
    by ruffian on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:59:02 PM EST
    I'll never understand why he let this fester. I hope we get an explanation some day.

    OK, here is Jeffrey Toobin saying Chelsea Clinton will have a big role in the Obama campaign.  The Kool-aid must be good tonight.

    [ Parent ]

    Now whose pimping Chelsea? (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by annabelly on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:10:14 PM EST
    Huh? I saw that too, and was like, WTF?

    [ Parent ]
    He really said that? (none / 0) (#95)
    by Sleeper on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:01:16 PM EST
    uh.  That's just dumb.  Not sure what he's thinking there.

    [ Parent ]
    She would be the best unifier (none / 0) (#116)
    by ruffian on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:09:52 PM EST
    says Toobin.  Anderson Cooper asked if she really had a day job she needed to get back to.

    I commented below that if David Shuster were on CNN we would have gotten an interesting take on it, and he would get fired this time.

    [ Parent ]

    Speaking of day jobs, (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by Palomino on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:33:59 PM EST
    some of these pundits have too damn much time on their hands. If they felt like doing real journalism and maybe reporting once in a while, or just studying up and thinking before they open their mouths to bloviate, maybe they wouldn't have to sit around thinking up stupid scenarios like Chelsea Clinton as Obama Girl. Jesus C.

    [ Parent ]
    I always liked Shuster, but... (none / 0) (#135)
    by Sleeper on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:18:04 PM EST
    ...he should have been fired for that stupid comment.

    But they didn't want to fire Matthews, so they couldn't fire Shuster.  Double-standard.  In his defense that comment seems to have been an aberration.  But still.

    [ Parent ]

    Maybe (none / 0) (#199)
    by IzikLA on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:58:19 AM EST
    He will offer Chelsea the VP spot.  I mean, if he's ready to be President she might as well be ready to be VP.  Now THAT would be Change!

    [ Parent ]
    And what is it that Obama thinks Hillary wants? (none / 0) (#88)
    by bridget on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:59:01 PM EST
    What does Borger think Hillary wants?

    I am not watching TV right now.

    [ Parent ]

    All the FL and MI delegates seated (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by ruffian on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:11:00 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    its not what Hillary wants (5.00 / 2) (#123)
    by dotcommodity on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:12:06 PM EST
    Its what we (17 million) want: we want her to be President. And its not over yet. The Supers have to vote their conscience.

    But DNC paid shills at Air America gripe and whine all the damn time about what the evil Spawn of Satan wants as if its some kind of a vanity candidacy....creeps me out.

    Who would have thought Democrats could be this dumb.

    [ Parent ]

    A Speech at Obama's nom convention (none / 0) (#154)
    by bridget on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:34:03 PM EST
    I have actually heard pundits suggest that more than once - and they are serious, too

    really ... one can't make this up ....

    [ Parent ]

    Me too ... all the way to the Convention. (5.00 / 3) (#81)
    by bridget on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:56:55 PM EST
    Because it is the right thing to do IMHO.

    [ Parent ]
    But, BTD, you've always supported BO (5.00 / 4) (#85)
    by Shainzona on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:57:42 PM EST
    because of his superior campaign...yet up above, you agree that this is another boneheaded move (not your words, of course!).

    Do you still feel his superiority?

    [ Parent ]

    Nothing but an empty suit (none / 0) (#169)
    by hedyanne on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:33:47 PM EST
    If Ted Kennedy went all the way to the convention why can't Hillary.  And why is it the DNC has chosen BO to be the nominee just let the people have their say for once.  I will vote McCain before I ever vote for the empty suit.

    [ Parent ]
    "count the votes???" (none / 0) (#173)
    by diogenes on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:01:51 PM EST
    If it really mattered, Obama would throw mud by accusing Hillary of ignoring the votes of the caucus states.  
    It doesn't matter, so he won't stir up those ill feelings.


    [ Parent ]
    Choose death (1.00 / 4) (#32)
    by Michael Masinter on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:38:49 PM EST
    >>I see this as a great moment for Americans to stand up for principles in place of media-created end results.>>

    Absolutely; let's make our voices heard by voting for John McCain and by marching our sons and daughters off to death.  That will teach the media a lesson.


    [ Parent ]

    uhhhhhhhh, the fear card.... (5.00 / 7) (#96)
    by MMW on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:01:37 PM EST
    That's so sweeeet! /s

    [ Parent ]
    Somone should explain to (5.00 / 8) (#103)
    by cawaltz on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:04:19 PM EST
    the knuckleheads that if the fear card had worked to begin wit we'd already have been in the GOP camp. Liberal women are made of sterner stuff. We're used to having to fight and don't get the vapors.

    [ Parent ]
    Sarcastic lately? (none / 0) (#182)
    by stevenb on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:47:33 PM EST
    I guess you don't realize that Obama will also keep American soldiers in the War in Iraq for long enough to amass plenty of casualties...haven't you been listening to his rhetoric lately?

    [ Parent ]
    I can't believe how Democrats (5.00 / 9) (#11)
    by Serene1 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:32:09 PM EST
    with a straight face can ever justify not counting Fl & Mi in one of the closest nomination race. Looks like these rulz have become some sort of 10 commandments the way these Dem elites cling to it for dear life.

    Anways with this we have lost all our moral or any other right to say that Bush stole the election in 2000.

    Posting this again because I think it's the answer (5.00 / 5) (#41)
    by abfabdem on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:44:05 PM EST
    Just before Hillary spoke, Begala said, "and let the first be the last" and recommended Michigan and Florida re-vote after Puerto Rico!  Why not??  That would settle it once and for all and there could be no grousing from either side about a compromised compromise.  The Obama guys were complaining about the unfairness of the current vote totals so how could they complain about a re-do where all the votes counted?  The punishment would be that the states who sought to be first would be the very last to vote.  Imagine the publicity and voter turnout!  It would so energize an already energized Democratic electorate.  And we need those states in November!  We know there is money available to fund it.  It's the best idea I've heard on the situation.  Pass it on!!!!


    [ Parent ]
    One problem (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by Lou Grinzo on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:15:00 PM EST
    With all the attention those states will get, the next time around EVERY state will want to be last.  How will we stop them all from delaying their primaries???

    /snark

    What is The Cost of Energy?
    [ Parent ]

    Yeah. The rules are very very very (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by derridog on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:13:02 PM EST
    important when it comes to enforcing the most extreme (and actually uncalled for by the rules) punishment for Fla and Michigan, but it's okay to give Obama more delegates in  a state that Hillary won (Nevada).  Apparently the rules are flexible on that and a whole bunch of other things.

    [ Parent ]
    I've Heard That Obama Is Backing Off (5.00 / 8) (#12)
    by Blue Jean on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:32:14 PM EST
    declaring victory in the delegate count tonight, because that would look condescending.  And if there's one thing that the Obama campaign isn't, it's condescending.  Got that, sweetie?

    Jerome at MyDD says that with the Kentucky (5.00 / 3) (#94)
    by Shainzona on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:00:24 PM EST
    blow-out, BO can't make his "I've won half the delegate count tonight" statement - even with a win in Oregon.

    Yup, BO's much publicized "Mission Accomplished" moment.

    [ Parent ]

    kind of funny, considering (5.00 / 7) (#16)
    by boredmpa on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:33:17 PM EST
    that she is now ahead even if you pass all the uncommitted votes in MI to Obama.

    Guess why they really have to ignore MI/FL now.

    But this will stand (5.00 / 8) (#19)
    by andgarden on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:34:27 PM EST
    because Super Delegates only listen to the media. And so we go froward with a candidate who is, in my opinion, probably unelectable.

    Gag me.

    We have one chance to win (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by DCDemocrat on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:41:29 PM EST
    in November if Barack Obama is the nominee.  In a typical year, McCain would walk away with this in a breeze, but this might just be the year we could put up George McGovern and win the White House.  I have no hope about Obama's electability.  My hope for Democratic victory in the fall rests wholly on the record the Republicans have built these last eight years.

    [ Parent ]
    Nah. The 527s are probably going (5.00 / 4) (#47)
    by cosbo on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:46:40 PM EST
    to poison the well for Obama. I just don't see how they wont.


    [ Parent ]
    Economy (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by chrisvee on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:56:24 PM EST
    Our hopes may rest on the economy getting even worse which makes me feel rather ill, frankly.

    [ Parent ]
    It could happen (5.00 / 4) (#82)
    by Steve M on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:57:09 PM EST
    The last time we had a guaranteed Democratic victory was in 1976, due to Watergate.

    That worked out well for us in the short term, not so well in the long term.  I hope we don't repeat that scenario.

    [ Parent ]

    Indeed (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by andgarden on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:59:21 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    But (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Jane in CA on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:05:53 PM EST
    did over half of the democratic core voters in 1976 state that they would not support Carter if he won the nomination?  

    That's where any parallel to any other presidential race falls apart, IMHO.

    [ Parent ]

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Steve M on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:07:32 PM EST
    The argument was that Obama might win, in spite of all that, solely by virtue of the overwhelming Democratic sentiment this year.

    Unless you think Obama is 100% guaranteed to be unelectable, a claim I think no one can make with certainty, then that scenario has to at least be acknowledged as possible.

    [ Parent ]

    I think (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by Jane in CA on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:15:44 PM EST
    it highly unlikely that Obama will regain a significant portion of disenfranchised democratic voters by November.

    Will the new voters his campaign has brought in be enough to make up the difference? I don't know.  My guess is no, but I'm no political guru :)

    [ Parent ]

    I think you are mistaken (5.00 / 5) (#156)
    by Palomino on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:39:31 PM EST
    This year the Republicans accidentally nominated the only Republican who can win this fall, because he appeals to moderate and conservative Democrats. Obama clearly does not, as we've been seeing since Texas and Ohio, so McCain's chances are even better if the superdelegates are stupid enough to get behind Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    You're (5.00 / 9) (#35)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:43:05 PM EST
    better off with the realization that he's unelectable now than being hit with a huge loss in Nov.

    [ Parent ]
    Jeffrey Toobin, (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by vicndabx on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:35:01 PM EST
    Press Secretary in the Hillary Clinton Whitehouse (/s) - let's expose all the hypocrits tonite.  I just love it.  That comment about "made up categories" was just great.

    He also lied about the Popular Vote (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by andgarden on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:36:30 PM EST
    not being determinable.

    [ Parent ]
    If he did, I musta missed it. (none / 0) (#30)
    by vicndabx on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:38:06 PM EST
    Oh well, so much for hoping for at least one somewhat unbiased pundit.

    [ Parent ]
    I don't understand... (none / 0) (#37)
    by Alec82 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:43:16 PM EST
    ...why that is a controversial statement.  It seems perfectly reasonable to state that it really can't be.  In order to determine it you would need a method of including caucus votes, sorting out MI, etc.  What do you use? Exit polling data?

    [ Parent ]
    It's about as "reasonable" (5.00 / 3) (#48)
    by andgarden on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:46:54 PM EST
    as claiming that you can't "prove" gravity. We can get very close to knowing what the popular vote is. And if the caucus states cared to, they could release a count.

    All of the ways of counting the popular vote are knowable, and Jay Cost has a spreadsheet where you can try for yourself.

    [ Parent ]

    Why should anyone sort MI? (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by ghost2 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:47:14 PM EST
    Obama took his name off, and it paid off handsomely for him.  Now, he also wants to claim not only the uncommitted vote but take some away from Hillary.

    If press wasn't a disgrace, they would have laughed and howled.  

    [ Parent ]

    The actual votes are known (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:52:50 PM EST
    It helps to know a effing thing about what you are commenting about.

    You do not.

    [ Parent ]

    It depends (none / 0) (#50)
    by Evie on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:47:20 PM EST
    I believe the states have the caucus vote data. Michigan has its popular vote results, certified by the state and everything.

    Whether they SHOULD count is a different question than whether they are countable.

    [ Parent ]

    Isn't this directly interfering with the vote? (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by Ellie on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:36:45 PM EST
    For all the histrionics about DNC Roolz getting more reverence than the penal code, constitution or religious dogma -- which are always presented with the expectation of interpretive latitude -- isn't reporting this "victory" while voting is ongoing directly disrupting the process?

    If TeamObama is encouraging this and media and Dem insiders are participating, this is a fraud being committed on voters in general and Dem supporters in particular.

    If networks (public airwaves) as well as cable news are along for the ride, it's a criminal use of public resources and someone on Team Clinton should lodge a formal complaint. (Translated into free time and/or dollars, It could constitute a campaign contribution.)

    I'm far from an expert on election law, but I think this collusive relationship isn't just morally reprehensible but downright criminal.

    I'd love to sue the DNC. (none / 0) (#146)
    by magisterludi on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:27:59 PM EST
    Class action, anyone?

    [ Parent ]
    haven't you noticed (5.00 / 8) (#25)
    by karen for Clinton on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:36:58 PM EST
    He doesn't count any state that he can't win.

    He blew off west virginia so he could pretend he could have won it if he tried...

    West Virginia counts (none / 0) (#45)
    by Sleeper on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:45:58 PM EST
    But caucus states, red states, and little states that Clinton lost after Super Tuesday, do not.  Got it.

    [ Parent ]
    Been hearing this since Feb. (none / 0) (#200)
    by IzikLA on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:16:46 AM EST
    How about a new argument, you know, maybe one based in reality?  No one, neither Clinton nor her campaign, ever said that caucus state, red states or little states don't matter.  They are making their electability argument based on her wins in the large states, the swing states and the support she has carried in the blue states.  This is a very valid argument.  If you can't see that then there is no arguing with you.

    Personally, if someone had told me last year that our Democratic nominee would have lost, some by rather large double-digit margins, the following states -- CA, NY, OH, PA, NJ, MA, AZ, FL, MI, TX, TN, KY, WV, NM, NV, RI, OK, AR, IN -- well, I would've told them they were crazy.

    [ Parent ]

    Thank God (none / 0) (#201)
    by IzikLA on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:18:09 AM EST
    You were kidding.  It's late and my head is spinning from all the spin.

    [ Parent ]
    If I Were Hillary (5.00 / 16) (#26)
    by BDB on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:37:09 PM EST
    I'd make the point that arguing pledged delegates instead of votes is what a Washington Insider would do, not a candidate that wants to empower people or change Washington.  Obama has tipped his hand - he's the establishment candidate.  Under him, nothing that people hate about Washington will change.  Just as in 2000, their votes will not matter.

    Not just a Washington insider (5.00 / 7) (#38)
    by andgarden on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:43:16 PM EST
    John Bolton would put it this way. In fact he did. In Florida. "I'm with the Bush-Cheney team, and I'm here to stop the count," he famously said.

    [ Parent ]
    I think that's why the establishment wants Obama (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by abfabdem on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:46:40 PM EST
    because nothing will change.

    [ Parent ]
    They are scared of Hillary. (5.00 / 8) (#59)
    by Stellaaa on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:50:29 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    It is like Obama and Dem leadership (5.00 / 4) (#27)
    by kenosharick on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:37:22 PM EST
    are doing their best to help Mccain win. How can they be so stupid? FOX just said Hamilton Jordan (from the Carter admin) passed away onight Yes- I a watching Fox, they are the only channel giving Sen. Clinton a half way fair shake.

    It's pretty damn bad (5.00 / 5) (#28)
    by Mrwirez on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:38:01 PM EST
    when FOX is where I go to get non Obama/ correct spin on primary nights.............. Gack. These people are morons.

    Every time I start to soften (5.00 / 9) (#29)
    by DCDemocrat on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:38:05 PM EST
    toward a prospective Obama nomination, the guy opens his mouth.  

    2025 still remains (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by flyerhawk on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:38:13 PM EST
    the official number to reach as per the DNC.  

    It is not the news organizations role to exhort the DNC to change their rules.

    Obama will allow those states to count.   The RBC will seat those seats in some way.  

    The DNc has said (5.00 / 3) (#61)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:51:11 PM EST
    MI and FL WILL BE SEATED.

    Howard Dean said it.

    But put that aside, Obama's move is just stupid. But you really have no rationality on these things.

    [ Parent ]

    What/When/How will they be seated? (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by Shainzona on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:10:12 PM EST
    After Obama declares himself victorious...when it "won't matter"?

    Or will they be seated and allowed only to vote on rules and regulations, but not the nominee?

    At one point (I believe) Dean was saying the MI and FLA delegates can come to Denver to be a part of the convention (eat, drink and be merry?) but could not vote.

    I am worried about what "seated" actually means.

    [ Parent ]

    I really don't understand (none / 0) (#102)
    by flyerhawk on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:04:00 PM EST
    why you think that ad hominem throwaways have any value.

    Obama will seat those delegates at a time when they can't hurt him.

    Hillary would do the exact same thing if the roles were reversed.  So would any other politician.

    [ Parent ]

    But Barack Obama (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by Evie on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:11:00 PM EST
    claimed NOT to be "any other politician".

    So where's the change he's promising?

    [ Parent ]

    Oh, bs (5.00 / 5) (#101)
    by angie on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:03:25 PM EST
    It is up to the news organizations, if they were still doing there jobs, to expose unfairness, to expose hypocrisy, to expose voter disenfranchisement. Do you think the news organization had nothing to do with enacting Child Labor laws? With helping the Civil Rights Act get passed? Or ending the war in Vietnam? Or getting Nixon impeached? What the news organizations should not be doing is "choosing" our candidate by refusing to give him unbiased coverage.

    [ Parent ]
    None of that (none / 0) (#114)
    by flyerhawk on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:08:51 PM EST
    has anything to do with this discussion.

    The Clinton campaign has decided to use 2209 as the minimum delegates necessary.  This is a political strategy.  The only way that number is the number is if Obama wins and seats the delegates as is.

    [ Parent ]

    Look, you don't know the difference (none / 0) (#130)
    by angie on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:14:58 PM EST
    between recorded history and prehistory (that thread closed before I could respond to you), so don't tell me that has nothing to do with the discussion -- it has everything to do with the discussion, because the media should have the MI & FL situation as the #1 story and not simply be regurgitating the Obama camp's talking points.

    [ Parent ]
    Or (none / 0) (#143)
    by Step Beyond on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:23:01 PM EST
    If the RBC rules that they are seated on May 31. Or if the credentials committee seats them. Or if the convention votes to seat them.

    Obama isn't the only path to seating those delegates. So the only way to know how many delegates it takes to win, is to wait until the LAST method of seating the delegates is exhausted or they are seated.

    [ Parent ]

    "Obama Will Allow"??? (5.00 / 1) (#202)
    by IzikLA on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:20:00 AM EST
    Well, I just can't think of a single thing wrong with THAT statement!!!

    UGH.

    [ Parent ]

    We have trials even though the penal code exists (none / 0) (#52)
    by Ellie on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:47:51 PM EST
    And people get a day in court.

    We have a convention.

    Paul Begala made the point that the NBA won't be "resolving" Game Seven of the Western Conference, they'll play the games.

    Just like they played Game Seven of Cavs/Celts.

    Just like the official scorer of ANY contest on or off the field must tabulate what polls and estimates glean on the ground.

    Keep your crowns, coronations and premature ejaculations.

    Rule of law is king here, not DNC Roolz or a cheesy shell game and a really REALLY bad 4-month long endzone dance.

    [ Parent ]

    unreal (5.00 / 5) (#39)
    by Robert Oak on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:43:44 PM EST
    I think if the DNC does anything less than count those votes as is, they can kiss the general goodbye (unless somehow Hillary gets the nomination anyway).

    Seriously, Democrats got a lot of credibility for Florida, election 2000 and they just have blow it all away basically proving they are almost worst than the GOP in terms of having a fair primary season.

    God, just unreal when if they had just been fair and let voters decide you could have put up a potted plant, put a sign on in Democrat and have it win the general.  Unbelievable.
    The Economic Populist

    Wouldn't be... (none / 0) (#53)
    by Alec82 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:48:02 PM EST
    ...that easy.  Iowa and New Hampshire have grown accustomed to their special status.  The election was always going to be close, once they chose McCain.  

     It was a massive PR screw up, though.  

    [ Parent ]

    Yeah I'm sure Donna Brazile (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by cawaltz on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:53:16 PM EST
    is all broke up over it. (rolling eyes)

    [ Parent ]
    Yeah and (none / 0) (#60)
    by Robert Oak on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:50:55 PM EST
    They were still first anyway and FL/MI are way more important.  I agreed with the MI governor because economically MI is ground zero for all that is wrong and corrupt in this country.  
    The Economic Populist
    [ Parent ]
    I'm feeling really good right now (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by Firefly4625 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:45:16 PM EST
    about Hillary being the nominee - and the next President.

    Blathering heads can say what they will - lie and spin and pretend MI and FL don't exist and say WV and Kentucky mean "nothing" and talk about "the math" until they turn purple - Hill's gonna take this - all the way to the White House!

    Ooh - I feel gooooooood!

    conceit of the elite (5.00 / 7) (#58)
    by Robert Oak on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:49:17 PM EST
    I just heard that used describing Obama on FAUX news.

    I'll bet dollars to donuts that will be a major label glued onto Obama's forehead like a Hello, My Name is ____ at a cheese whiz convention.
    The Economic Populist

    Sweetie Alert! (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:51:13 PM EST
    According to Suzanne Malveaux on CNN, the Sweetie-in-Chief is going to "reach out" to Clinton supporters by praising Hillary Clinton extravagantly in his speech coming up in Oregon.

    I'm reaching out my all-knowing Middle Finger (5.00 / 7) (#92)
    by Ellie on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:59:48 PM EST
    ... to test the winds.

    Yep, lotta hot air out there.

    Nope, he doesn't have a chance of getting my support nor a prayer of winning the GE.

    [ Parent ]

    This I gotta see (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by americanincanada on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:03:04 PM EST
    But why is he doing it? What are the exit polls showing in Oregon? What do his internals show that he is changing course for the evening so radically?

    [ Parent ]
    I. WILL. NEVER. VOTE. FOR . OBAMA. (5.00 / 3) (#128)
    by Angel on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:13:52 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    He's not in Oregon (none / 0) (#140)
    by waldenpond on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:21:07 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I refuse to watch the crap being spewn on the TV. (5.00 / 4) (#72)
    by Angel on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:54:17 PM EST