Obama, CNN, NBC Do Not Count Florida and Michigan

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? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    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
    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?

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

    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?

    LMAO (5.00 / 2) (#144)
    by themomcat on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:24:04 PM EST
    What are you the "punctuation police"?

    MY bad (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by themomcat on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:28:52 PM EST
    forgot a comma. ;-)

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

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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

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


    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.

    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?

    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.

    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.

    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


    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?)

    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

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

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.


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

    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.


    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.

    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).


    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

    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.

    all the way to the Convention.

    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. . )

    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.


    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?

    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.

    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.


    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.


    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!

    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.


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


    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 ....


    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.

    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?


    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.

    "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.

    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.


    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

    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.

    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?

    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!!!!

    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???



    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.


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


    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.


    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 :)


    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.

    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.

    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.

    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?

    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.


    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.  


    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.


    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.


    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?

    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.

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

    Howard Dean said it.

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


    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.


    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.


    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?


    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.


    "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!!!



    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.


    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.

    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.  


    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)

    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.  

    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.

    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.


    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?

    I. WILL. NEVER. VOTE. FOR . OBAMA. (5.00 / 3) (#128)
    by Angel on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:13:52 PM EST
    He's not in Oregon (none / 0) (#140)
    by waldenpond on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:21:07 PM EST
    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
    Hubby is watching it for me and hollers out when they say something stupid, which is about all the time.  I don't care what they say or who says it:  This race is not over.  Hillary is the one who can win in November.  And no matter how many nice things Obama says about Hillary (with his fingers crossed) I WILL NOT vote for Obama in the general election.    

    My husband is not permitted (none / 0) (#137)
    by themomcat on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:19:07 PM EST
    to watch the news channels anymore because he throws thing when he gets "annoyed". He is watching "Shark" and blogging. He is very good at multi-tasking for a male. ;-)

    Kos just called white Kentucky voters racists... (5.00 / 12) (#73)
    by citizen53 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:54:37 PM EST
    and I objected at his site about the labeling of others.

    Three guesses at the the response.

    Meh (5.00 / 11) (#87)
    by cawaltz on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:58:44 PM EST
    Kos is just throwing a temper tantrum because the "unwashed, working class" masses aren't voting the way the "elite" want them to.

    I wish him and the boyz luck convincing the electorate to vote for their candidate by threatening to CALL THEM NAMES if they don't. You'd figure a grown man would know better. He sounds as ridiclous as the Dem Cogress does when they threaten Bushwith sternly worded resolutions.


    Link? (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by decih on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:12:17 PM EST
    and I objected at his site about the labeling of others.

    Can you link the post? I'm a DKos regular. If your post is civil, I'll rec it.


    Here you go... (5.00 / 2) (#136)
    by citizen53 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:18:26 PM EST

    It's hidden.  Those guys can't take any dissent.

    How very progressive of them.


    Done. (n/t) (none / 0) (#142)
    by decih on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:21:34 PM EST
    You're a braver man then I (none / 0) (#104)
    by angie on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:04:20 PM EST
    and obviously have a stronger stomach. :-)

    They hide rated it... (5.00 / 3) (#112)
    by citizen53 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:08:11 PM EST
    and called me a troll.

    And I am UID 25 there.

    No worries.


    A polite retraction? (none / 0) (#158)
    by Nadai on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:51:48 PM EST
    OK, maybe not.

    a juvenile comment (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by pixelpusher on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:55:47 PM EST
    but I must say it...

    Whenever I see Obama represented in shorthand as BO, it just makes me think "body odor."

    Sorry!  I know, it's immature, but that's what pops in there.

    I'd rather see it as BHO.

    It took me weeks (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by Molly Pitcher on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:57:27 PM EST
    to get over hearing the Lifebouy 'foghorn.'

    LOL (none / 0) (#106)
    by ruffian on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:05:20 PM EST
    There have been a lot of great lines tonight, but that one takes it.

    OT but thanks for reminding me of the lifebouy fog (none / 0) (#179)
    by Linda on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:35:13 PM EST
    horn. That commercial was from the 50's right? It was funny then and really funny now.  It's perfect.

    Word games (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by Lou Grinzo on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:31:20 PM EST
    I have a weird mental glitch with BHO--I always hear the old ad from a certain pay channel: "It's not TV, it's HBO."

    MSNBC (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Decal on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:57:10 PM EST
    It won't stop.  Now Matthews is claiming there will always be a battle between the Idealist, Populist wing of the party (Obama) and the Establishment wing of the party (Clinton).  Yes, despite all evidence to the contrary apparently Obama's the populist and Hillary's the establishment candidate!

    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by cawaltz on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:11:09 PM EST
    hat Barack sure is a populist. I mean look at how he wants everyone to have health care and how deeply he feels for folks having to struggle with gas prices. LOL

    Someone needs to define populist for Chris.


    Michigan and Florida (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Sleeper on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:57:44 PM EST
    Since none of the candidates contested the DNC ruling stripping MI and FL of delegates in any meaningful way before one of them suddenly needed them, I at first agreed that neither state should be given delegates.  There are rules that the DNC needs to know will be followed and that was that.

    Listening to people here make the case, I have come to believe that some accommodation needs to be given to these two states, for several reasons.  I believe that everyone in this race is coming to that same conclusion, it's just a question of finding an acceptable formula.

    Seating them as is doesn't work.  Obama and Edwards removed their names acting in accordance with the DNC ruling and they surely would have won some of them had the ruling not been made.  Saying "Too bad, you blew it" is just going to mollify Clinton supporters and exacerbate Obama ones, and makes it look as if Clinton is stealing the nomination.  That won't heal the rift.  A revote wouldn't have worked unless you redo the GOP primary as well, as there's no way to know how many Dems voted in the GOP primary because of the declared meaninglessness of their own primary.

    Clinton should, and I think will, get the majority of delegates from both states.  (They should probably be given half their delegates back, as seems the customary penalty for this.)  It's just a question of how many Obama will be awarded.  But to say he gets none is just as bad a solution as giving the states nothing at all.

    Just my opinion.

    Please. This has been discussed a thousand (5.00 / 2) (#155)
    by derridog on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:37:04 PM EST
    times.  Edwards and Obama were not obeying "party rules" when they took their names off the ballot. They were required not to campaign, but  there was nothing said about taking their names off the ballot.  They were trying to win Iowa and curry favor with the Iowans by doing that because the Iowans were supposedly pissed that Michigan jumped ahead in time. They also figured that Hillary would win Michigan they were trying to discredit that win. Think of it as another version of "Obama won't campaign in states that he might lose."  

    In any case, Obama had his surrogates make  a huge push in the primary for Michiganers to vote "Uncommitted" if they wanted him, so he could play both ends against the middle. The uncommitted vote included Edwards voters.  Now Obama complains that he wasn't on the ballot and so he should get all the uncommitted votes and the votes for Biden, Dodd, Richardson, Gravel and Kucinich, as well as some of Hillary's votes or else he'll be very generous and split all the delegates 50/50. What a fair guy! It's like the old story about the man who wanted his sentence commuted for murdering his parents on the grounds that he was an orphan.


    Why don't you... (none / 0) (#165)
    by Sleeper on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:19:37 PM EST
    ...respond to what I said, and not to what you think Obama said.  I said some accommodation should be reached, and that Clinton should and probably will get most of the delegates but Obama should clearly get some portion of both MI and FL.

    After complimenting the people here for changing my mind on this, I guess I expected a more polite response, to the words I actually wrote.  Silly me.


    I was replying to this: (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by derridog on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:40:20 PM EST
    "seating them as is doesn't work.  Obama and Edwards removed their names acting in accordance with the DNC ruling and they surely would have won some of them had the ruling not been made.  Saying "Too bad, you blew it" is just going to mollify Clinton supporters and exacerbate Obama ones, and makes it look as if Clinton is stealing the nomination. "

    And I stand by that. (none / 0) (#171)
    by Sleeper on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:53:45 PM EST
    And you said Obama doesn't deserve a 50-50 split, when I specifically said that Clinton won a majority of delegates.  Had the DNC not ruled as they had, everyone's names would have stayed on the ballot.  If it's wrong to deny Clinton Democrats in Michigan a voice in the nomination process, why is it okay to deny Obama Democrats a voice as well?

    Because (none / 0) (#177)
    by janarchy on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:25:51 PM EST
    Obama voluntarily took his name off the MI ballot and anyone who wanted to vote for him was told by his surrogates including John Conyers and Mrs Conyers that they should vote uncommitted instead. Edwards told his people the same thing. So since they were not on the ballot by their own choice, they should not get any pledged delegates. Clinton stayed on the ballot so the people who voted for her should legitimately be represented.

    Obama was given the chance to have a revote in MI but it was not something that would favor him, so he blocked it. Again, his choice.

    Obama should get whatever delegates he earned in Florida. However, Clinton won there too, so she should get the majority of the delegates.


    I'm sure that will satisfy (none / 0) (#181)
    by Sleeper on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:45:36 PM EST
    ...Obama's supporters in Michigan.  "Obama gets nothing."  See?  Party unity.

    I don't see how this is so hard.  Obama and Edwards's decisions to remove their names stems from the DNC ruling.  If the DNC ruling is overturned after the fact, his supporters are unfairly penalized.  A revote is problematic unless it's a statewide revote, and there's no reason for the Michigan GOP to help us fix this problem.  Everyone agrees that some proportion of MI voters would have voted for Obama.  It's just a question of all parties concerned coming to a compromise figure for that number.  I'm sure Clinton's reps will try to make it as small a number as possible, and Obama's reps as big as possible.  But they can find a compromise.  This isn't insurmountable.

    I don't agree with the Obama proposal of 50-50.  But surely it should be more than zero.


    Too bad (none / 0) (#184)
    by janarchy on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:54:57 PM EST
    He took his name off the ballot. His supporters did vote. Just uncommitted. Let them figure out just what the percentage of those uncommitted votes belong to him and let him fight it out with Edwards etc. He does not deserve even one single vote of the pledged delegates -- those people did not vote for him. Many of the people who voted uncommitted didn't either. He made that bed, he should lie in it. Sorry but I have no sympathy for him or anyone else who tried to game the system, now wants the perks after the fact.

    And if the situation had been the other way around, I'd say the same thing. Them's the breaks.


    Re: Too bad (none / 0) (#186)
    by Sleeper on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:02:09 AM EST
    And of course, it's all about getting Clinton the coronation.  Sorry.  Nomination.  If Obama Michiganders feel left out, screw them.  That's a wonderful sentiment.

    Snideness aside, we're not too far off in our opinion.  Some of the delegates designated as "undeclared" should go to him, and Edwards, who is now of course for Obama.  I just think the DNC should step in and help determine what percentage of them he gets, in the interests of party unity.  How they all decide on that is up to them.

    I do think that both MI and FL should be stripped of half their delegates though, as a compromise punishment.  There needs to be some consequence for their defying the schedule.  Just not so draconian as a total shut-out.


    No (none / 0) (#188)
    by janarchy on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:09:06 AM EST
    Read what I said again. I would feel the same way regardless of who the candidate. Even if it was HRC. It was a bad move, period. You can't take your name off the ballot, tell your people to vote uncommitted and then try to nab 50% of committed delegates for anyone because you want them.

    I just want MI and FL to be counted, fair and square no matter who the advantage goes to.

    Please do not put words in my mouth or assume you know what my feelings are on the matter. As it happens, your final assessment is correct -- if HRC was given her share of actual delegates and Obama got a proportion of the uncommitted delegates, fine. If those numbers were halved due to a penalty, that would be fine too. The point is that the voters should not be penalized because of machinations by one or both parties. The voters did not pick the dates of the primaries in either FL or MI and in both cases, it was the Republicans who f*cked over the Democrats knowing that it would screw them over with the DNC. This has set a great precedent -- now the Republican controlled states know exactly how to shoot Democrats in the feet during primary season. They're just sitting back and laughing. Sadly people like Howard Dean and Donna Brazille are apparently too thick to see the implications or too in love with their ROOLZ to care.


    Re: No (none / 0) (#190)
    by Sleeper on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:16:47 AM EST
    I'll take you at your word that this is about fairness and not about partisanship for one side, then.

    Like I said several times, I don't agree with the Obama camp's 50-50 split notion.  I understand their reasoning (50 percent for her is better than 0 percent) but even if you count every single undeclared vote as an Obama vote Clinton would have won.  She should get the majority of MI's halved delegate count.  I just think Obama voters should get some representation too.

    I think we can all agree that the way the DNC runs its primary schedule needs major reform.  Somehow, Iowa and NH need to be talked off the ledge and we need to implement a rotating primary schedule.  If only to hear Tim Russert tell us that as American Samoa goes, so goes the nation.


    No (none / 0) (#205)
    by IzikLA on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:31:38 AM EST
    There is just no reasoning to a 50-50 split, you know better than that.  Giving her 50% equates to giving her nothing, despite your attempt at asserting otherwise.

    Oh Please (none / 0) (#204)
    by IzikLA on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:28:55 AM EST
    If anyone has been getting the coronation treatment this primary season it is Obama.  

    No it doesn't (none / 0) (#185)
    by Step Beyond on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:59:22 PM EST
    The DNC didn't tell them not to campaign and it certainly didn't tell them to remove their names. They didn't remove them in Florida (and they had weeks after Michigan ballot removal to do it). It wasn't up to Obama or anyone else to further punish states/voters. The DNC was already taking action.

    Obama wouldn't get 0 delegates from Michigan. He would certainly be able to lobby the uncommitted delegates and receive some, maybe most or all of them. He just wouldn't be GIVEN any automatically because he didn't get any votes.

    His actions had consequences for him. That is how life works. The shame of this incident is that his actions had consequences for voters who wanted to vote for him. We can't change that for them. And we must always be careful to count the vote, but not to alter the vote. Even with the best of intentions.


    Maybe this is just semantics, then. (none / 0) (#187)
    by Sleeper on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:08:34 AM EST
    Lobbying for undeclared, rather than having them pledged to them.

    Honestly, as long as there's some reasonable representation for Obama voters in MI, I think people will accept it.

    In retrospect, the decision to remove their names from MI was a mistake for Obama (and Edwards, had he lasted this long).  But it wasn't done in a vacuum, it was done acting on good faith with the DNC ruling, and if that's reversed long after the fact, there should be some reasonable accommodation for his supporters.

    I just think it's weird how some Clinton backers are saying "too bad, suck it up, life has consequences" when it comes to Obama's removing his name.  Acting against DNC rules, apparently, should have no consequences at all, as long as it benefits Clinton.  They want to overturn the earlier ruling (and I agree now with that) but they don't want to reach out to Obama Democrats in MI.  But I thought this was about fairness?


    Yes, he can lobby for all the uncommitteds (none / 0) (#194)
    by Step Beyond on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:32:52 AM EST
    But it wasn't done in a vacuum, it was done acting on good faith with the DNC ruling, and if that's reversed long after the fact, there should be some reasonable accommodation for his supporters.

    There was NO DNC rule that they couldn't campaign or that they had to remove their name. The DNC originally had in their rules about not campaigning but the actual decision did not include it. So if the DNC didn't want it included (or they would have included it) who the hell is Obama to override that DNC decision? It is not "good faith" to take action and blame it on an organization who specifically decided against that action.

    The DNC RBC was wrong in its actions. But don't blame them for all that went wrong. Obama and the others who signed that pledge, as well as the writers of that pledge are the ones responsible for the no campaigning but still fundraising choice. And Obama and others who took their names off the Michigan ballot are responsible for denying voters the chance to vote for them. Blame where it lies. The DNC RBC removed the delegates, but the candidates took it further on their own.


    Re: (none / 0) (#198)
    by Sleeper on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:55:58 AM EST
    Personally, I think Clinton was hedging her bets in a borderline dishonest way by not protesting the MI/FL delegate stripping until just before the primaries, then insisting they counted after she won and that she had always felt that way.  She has a right to do that, this is politics.  It doesn't really speak well for her, but, it's a rough game I guess.  I know no one here will agree with me on that, so we'll just have to agree to disagree.

    I don't care what rhetoric people want to use or who wants to blame whom, I just want this resolved so that no matter who wins the nomination there will be no claims that one side in Michigan was disenfranchised.  


    You are spinning yourself silly (none / 0) (#206)
    by IzikLA on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:36:04 AM EST
    Clinton never EVER acted against DNC rules,  If you want to argue that one then you need your candidate to look in the mirror since he campaigned for Uncommitted in Michigan and ran ads in Florida, both of which are considered campaigning and are against the rules they are so fond of talking about.

    That said, I agree Obama deserves some delegates in Michigan.  I'm just saying you're doing your argument no favors by throwing around inaccuracies as facts, over and over again.


    Question (none / 0) (#166)
    by Evie on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:26:59 PM EST
    Why didn't Obama remove his name from the Florida ballot "in accordance with the DNC ruling"?

    The RULES are the RULES, right?


    Apparently FL doesn't allow it (none / 0) (#172)
    by Sleeper on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:55:30 PM EST
    Not a Floridian, but that's what I've read about it.

    But (none / 0) (#174)
    by Evie on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:08:55 PM EST
    doesn't that mean that Obama broke the DNC "rules" by staying on the FL ballot?

    What? (none / 0) (#178)
    by Sleeper on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:35:03 PM EST
    How is he supposed to do something state law doesn't allow him to do?

    The point is that all the candidates agreed, by not raising a fuss when it would have mattered, that MI and FL would not count.  That was the DNC ruling, and right or wrong, they abided by it.  They didn't sue to change that, they didn't decry the decision until Clinton's campaign saw that they might need the two states.  Then suddenly it's every state matters.

    If you say that to not seat MI or FL would irreparably harm party unity, how can you not see that denying Obama part of the MI delegates that he obviously would have won had not the DNC's actions occurred does the same thing?  The response that Obama Democrats in MI get no voice because the DNC reverses itself after candidates acted in good faith with the state primary's nullification?  How is that fair?  Moreover, how does that mollify Obama Michiganders who will then feel just as robbed as Clinton Michiganders do now?

    FL seems a fairly easy fix, but everyone is going to have to sit down and address MI seriously.  Clinton should win the state (with a halving of the delegates) but Obama voters deserve some representation too.


    Fairly certain (none / 0) (#180)
    by Evie on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:41:54 PM EST
    Florida law doesn't force anyone to run if they didn't want to.

    Regardless, if the DNC rules required his name to be removed from the MI ballot, those same rules would have required him to do with with the FL ballot. The rules apply to both states or none.


    Not from Florida, so... (none / 0) (#183)
    by Sleeper on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:54:09 PM EST
    ...I don't honestly know.  But the answer I've read from several different people is that they have a deadline for removing names.

    And I didn't say that the DNC rules required him to remove his name.  I said that Obama and Edwards abided with the primary's nullification and removed their names, and the claim is that they would have done so in FL too had it been allowed.

    Why is it unfair to suggest that Obama should be awarded a reasonable percentage of MI's delegates?  If this is supposed to be about uniting the party and bringing two states back into the fold, why ignore Obama Democrats in MI totally?  Should they be disenfranchised because of this big mistake?


    You should be asking Obama that (none / 0) (#203)
    by Evie on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:26:09 AM EST
    Why did Obama wilfully deprive his MI supporters the chance to vote for him when he was not required to remove his name from the ballot?

    It seems to me that Obama didn't consider MI voters important enough to let them vote for him.

    Not only that, but he forfeited the contest. You can't guess or conjecture votes that never took place. Elecrions aren't guessing games.


    Most insane pundit of the night (5.00 / 5) (#93)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:00:23 PM EST
    Jeff Toobin, again.  He's predicting that Obama will get Chelsea Clinton to play a huge role in his GE campaign and thereby Heal the Party.


    Everybody who thinks Chelsea will go for this, raise your hand!

    I am LMAO. This is soooooo stupid. Chelsea (5.00 / 6) (#115)
    by Angel on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:09:32 PM EST
    is a better woman than that, and a better daughter.  These people are living in la-la land if they really and truly belive that Chelsea will ever forget what has been done to her mother.  

    Toober said "All Obama has to do is ask" as if Obama is some sort of hunky dude.  Give me a frickin break.  Chelsea has more class in her little finger than Barak Obama has in his entire body.  No contest there.  


    Thanks for nothing (none / 0) (#152)
    by Lou Grinzo on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:32:43 PM EST
    Now I'm sitting on my hands and typing with my nose.

    i am wondering where these pundits (none / 0) (#192)
    by hellothere on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:20:28 AM EST
    get their stupid pills. i really wonder about that. is there some smog or something that comes out at night inside this beltway that turns their brains to mush? have the body snatchers really come like the movies? inquiring minds want to know.

    an ethical "bargaining down" (5.00 / 8) (#105)
    by mary kate on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:04:57 PM EST
    The Obama campaign is engaged in a kind of  "bargaining down" on the principle of "count every vote," which I used to believe was a core principle of the Democratic Party (and I would like to believe it still).  So: every vote counts, of course, except when it happens to benefit Obama to not count certain votes.  The "need" to "punish" someone or other for early-primary rule-breaking (which was not the fault of the voters, needless to say) provides convenient cover  for a cynical strategy of disenfranchising inconvenient (which is to say, more inclined to vote Clinton than Obama) voters.  

    At some level, I think they have to realize that ignoring/dismissing Michigan and Florida is both politically risky and ethically iffy.  I suspect they've convinced themselves that if only they can cinch the nomination for their candidate, they can make up for it in the fall, and return to the high road of hope and change, and all will be forgiven in the end.  But it just doesn't work that way.  These are actual voters, and in actual states that happen to matter quite a bit in terms of the electoral map.

    It's not over until Hillary says it's over. (5.00 / 4) (#108)
    by dwmorris on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:06:01 PM EST
    Everything else is atmospherics designed to pressure and/or bully her from the race --- delegate counts, MI/FL rules, SD momentum --- just atmospherics.

    Hillary needs to be strongly encouraged by her supporters to stay in the race until August.

    Obama is unelectable.


    The Precious is on stage now (FOX) (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:12:32 PM EST

    Oh man... (none / 0) (#145)
    by Jackson Hunter on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:25:06 PM EST
    I hope i don't wet myself or anything.  It's HIM!!!!!

    What a stupid joke this party has become, I'm not going to validate that "Blue Bush" and his tactics by voting for him.

    Hell, I wouldn't urinate on his face if it was on fire and he begged me to.  I won't vote for Mccain, and I'll vote for Gregoire and Cantwell, but I am NOT going to award his Cult of Personality and it's muddled little minions no matter what the consequences are.  Best case scenario:  Barack has half the success Carter did, and that's only if he can somehow win, which I seriously, seriously doubt.

    This is the type of attitude you get when you crap on people's votes and call them hick ass racists.  I wish him all the luck in Nov., because his sorry, resume-less butt is going to need it.



    Let me count the ways... (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by Cal on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:15:40 PM EST
    I detest Donna Looneytunes.

    CNN is not showing the popular vote (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by MarkL on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:31:19 PM EST
    total tonight, whereas they discussed extensively at other times. Gosh< I wonder why that is?

    New meme on the popular vote (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by standingup on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:27:47 PM EST
    tonight.  Essentially, there is no popular vote for the Democratic primary, only delegates.  ToobinGo figure?  Toobin even called her argument on the popular vote stupid.

    Some people say that the (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by cal1942 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:12:52 PM EST
    Obama campaign was well run.  This quote from BTD:
    "monumentally stupid of the Obama campaign."

    Is an apt description of the Obama campaign.  The campaign focused solely on using scorched earth tactics and have for that reason made a massive strategic blunder.

    They've handed the Clinton campaign a winning hand giving her the moral high ground: Let's count all the votes trumps da roolz and makes Obama look small.  Everyone knows that 2.3 million people voted and will look askance at any attempt by Obama to win on a technicality.

    A penalty which seemed unduly harsh will be seen by many people as a childish reaction to holding a primary early.  Most people could care less when primaries are held. The fact that his opponent handily won both contests will make Obama seem a very poor sport, a manipulator of dubious character.

    Even dumber is to claim victory on a night when you've been shellacked in a state reporting its returns by late evening. It makes him look like an arrogant fool who's trying to pull a fast one while insulting everyone's intelligence.

    But the Obama campaign sees the ruling as their ticket.  They can't see what the public sees.

    Even if he's gifted the nomination he's handed the McCain campaign a priceless gift to exploit in two major states.

    Let's hear fm OR's Female side: Nike ... (4.00 / 1) (#134)
    by Ellie on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:17:45 PM EST
    ... Goddess of Victory.

    Swoosh HQ's in Portland but the Goddess herself might reward the real fighter running the full race instead of the cheater litigating his way to a win.

    I'm interested to see whether Oregon still has any problematic uppity women kicking around. I seem to recall meeting a few when I lived on the Left Coast.

    Oh, and working stiffs and other people who haven't lost their education, brains and right to count whether they're relevant to Obama's political plans or not.

    Gergen is another idiot (none / 0) (#18)
    by Stellaaa on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:34:16 PM EST
    he of course does not count FL and MI.  Donna calls it a marker, what is this like some doggie contest of marking your corners.

    I didn't get this impression... (none / 0) (#20)
    by Alec82 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:34:41 PM EST
    ...at least not from CNN.  

     "CNN, along with NBC, at the behest of the Barack Obama campaign, will pretend Florida and Michigan do not exist."

    Why do you assume the Obama campaign is behind it? Partisan commentators are one thing, but why would you assume that they are doing the dirty work of the Obama campaign just because they are operating under the assumption that the party rules will be followed?

    Becasue the Obama campaign invented this (5.00 / 8) (#70)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:53:40 PM EST
    Is there not an Obama supporter here with a lick of sense?

    If they had any sense (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by pantsuit chic on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:10:36 PM EST
    they would be voting for Hillary.

    BTD, no need to insult... (none / 0) (#122)
    by Alec82 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:11:31 PM EST
    ...and Obama certainly took advantage of that number.  But it is hardly an Obama talking point.  The Clinton campaing paraded the 2025 number as well.  

     Now, are they right when they say MI and FL should be seated? Absolutely.  Every Democrat with common sense should fight for delegates to be seated, because they need to be.  But to claim that this is an invention of the Obama campaign that the media is just pushing for him...it is a little late in the game.


    Please notice the date on the Press Release (5.00 / 2) (#157)
    by wurman on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:45:28 PM EST

    Statement by Senator Hillary Clinton on the Seating of Delegates at the Democratic National Convention

    "I hear all the time from people in Florida and Michigan that they want their voices heard in selecting the Democratic nominee.

    "I believe our nominee will need the enthusiastic support of Democrats in these states to win the general election, and so I will ask my Democratic convention delegates to support seating the delegations from Florida and Michigan. I know not all of my delegates will do so and I fully respect that decision. But I hope to be President of all 50 states and U.S. territories, and that we have all 50 states represented and counted at the Democratic convention.

    "I hope my fellow potential nominees will join me in this.

    "I will of course be following the no-campaigning pledge that I signed, and expect others will as well."

    Sen. Clinton has been consistent on this all along.  [My emphasis]


    Well the campaign... (none / 0) (#189)
    by Alec82 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:15:59 AM EST
    ...has not been consistent.

     Among others.  I mean, we can argue about this back and forth, but all I see is self-promotion.


    I should add... (none / 0) (#195)
    by Alec82 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:51:32 AM EST
    ..the self-promotion encompasses both candidates.  That was unclear in my post.  

    Olbermann... (none / 0) (#33)
    by Tess on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:39:11 PM EST
    I've always been a fan of Olbermann...however, tonight as he was describing Clinton as being like a  lemming headed to sea, or some such thing, I was forced to change the channel!  He's gone way too far!

    My crusty ol' newspaper publisher father I'm sure is rolling over in his grave...

    Edward R. Murrow, too (5.00 / 3) (#149)
    by Lisa on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:29:16 PM EST
    He's been rolling over in his grave every night when that fraud Olbermann sullies his signature closing line.

    Well that settles it then (none / 0) (#54)
    by Edgar08 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:48:17 PM EST
    The first African American to be nominated for president by the Democratic Party had "special help."

    That's not race baiting.  That's just a fact.

    Obama said Gore won in 2000 (none / 0) (#56)
    by ig on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:48:44 PM EST
    Obama said Gore won in 2000 here

    Even if Florida or Michigan PDs may or may not be counted, they should be counted in the Popular vote.

    The Media (none / 0) (#57)
    by Stellaaa on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:48:53 PM EST
    Watching Malveaux get excited about the Iowa thing, I have to say that they want the " I was there when the first black man was nominated for president".  They want that in their resume.  

    When will BO speak tonight? (none / 0) (#64)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:52:35 PM EST

    Personally I don't care (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by angie on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:55:28 PM EST
    I'm not watching.

    Jeffrey Toobin (none / 0) (#97)
    by americanincanada on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:01:42 PM EST
    said Obama should get Chelsea to campaign for him.

    Yep - I almost choked on my drink (5.00 / 4) (#110)
    by ruffian on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:07:23 PM EST
    Good thing David Shuster wasn't there - he'd have an interesting description of that. This time it would get him fired.

    did he keep a straight face when he (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by hellothere on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:14:52 PM EST
    said that?

    Um (none / 0) (#141)
    by nellre on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:21:12 PM EST
    This move is so stupid it defies believe. It makes no sense at all.
    It's the death knell for Obama in the GE.
    It is political suicide.
    So unless he and his campaign managers have been drinking their own koolaid... it might mean something entirely different.

    I could speculate that he has been ordered to set himself up for a fall. That's a totally X Files thing to think... but what else makes sense?

    If Hillary's Counting On the Superdelegates... (none / 0) (#159)
    by DanAllNews on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:04:34 PM EST
    ...to throw her the nomination; if she's counting on results from states where voters were discouraged/prohibited from voting for her rivals; if she discounts altogether the results of caucus states -- does anyone seriously think she comes across as some kind of champion of democracy?

    yeah i darn sure do! (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by hellothere on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:12:21 PM EST
    If you refer to Michigan (5.00 / 2) (#168)
    by Evie on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:28:40 PM EST
    the "rivals" themselves prohibited the voters from voting by taking their names off the ballot.

    You don't get points for forfeiting.


    exactly, why don't people get it? (none / 0) (#191)
    by diplomatic on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:18:19 AM EST
    Should Hillary have removed herself from the ballot in Oregon tonight just because she thought she might lose?

    And if she wasn't on the ballot in Oregon tonight does that mean that Obama's results there shouldn't count toward the popular vote?

    Double standards strike again.  Obama supporters say: "it's the math"

    I say: "it's the logic"