home

How Do You Pretend 2 Million People Did Not Vote?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:35:13 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg This!! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Today on MSNBC, Kevin Spacey, a star of HBO's film depiction of the 2000 Florida Presidential vote travesty, Recount, said about the current Florida Democratic delegate fiasco:

I do not see how you can pretend two million people did not vote.

Indeed. The Huffington Post has a headline that reads HBO's Recount Opens 2000 Wounds. I think it does more than that. It rubs salt in the current wound in the Democratic Party on the seating of the Florida and Michigan delegations.

On May 31, the DNC better do the right thing. The DNC better do the smart thing. Seat the Florida and Michigan delegations.

By Big Tent Democrat

Comments closed

< U.S. Allowed Chinese to Interrogate and Abuse Gitmo Prisoners | Popular Vote Totals: Hillary's Still Ahead >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    How Do You Pretend 2 Million People Did Not Vote? | 212 comments (212 topical)
    Hear, hear! (5.00 / 6) (#1)
    by andgarden on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:37:14 PM EST


    I plan on being there to demonstrate (5.00 / 7) (#4)
    by honora on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:38:59 PM EST
    for democracy.  I hope lots of you can make it as well.

    right on (5.00 / 6) (#5)
    by proudliberaldem on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:39:27 PM EST
    Go Kevin Spacey.  So true. Ignoring voters anywhere should be an anathema to dems but, but Fla has a special significance.

    Indeed. (5.00 / 6) (#15)
    by madamab on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:44:27 PM EST
    You do not, in fact, pretend 2.5 million people did not vote. If you intend to use that to game the primaries, expect and accept that you are going to piss off quite a few lifelong D's.

    Disenfranchisement is not a Democratic - or democratic - value. The DNC - and Barack Obama -had better realize that before it's too late.

    [ Parent ]

    It's deeply ironic. (none / 0) (#162)
    by ghost2 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:48:42 PM EST
    Not only because of Florida 2000.  

    Also in the 100th anniversay of women earning the right to vote, in the year a black man and a woman are serious candidates for Presidency, in the year, when the democratic party wants to make history by either of its nominee,... the party decides to disenfranchise 2.5 million voters.

    It's breathtaking.  

    Hillary made that point today in Florida. "To do so, will undermine the very essence of the nominating process."

    It's a fantastic speech. Watch.

    [ Parent ]

    And with Kevin Spacey's declaration (none / 0) (#100)
    by zfran on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:17:02 PM EST
    Andrea Mitchell said thanks for being here and good luck with your HBO movie. I'm sure she was squirming.

    [ Parent ]
    Thanks (5.00 / 4) (#7)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:40:31 PM EST
    for staying on this BTD. It is important to seat their delegations and I'm sure that the Dems in both parties in those states are letting the DNC get an earful.

    I am not so sure (none / 0) (#35)
    by BarnBabe on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:56:09 PM EST
    The only reason I say this is that when I talk to family and friends in Florida, they are not doing anything because they have 'heard' that the votes WILL count. So if you believe they will, you do not protest. They hear this stuff on local stations, etc.

    [ Parent ]
    oh they'll count - but WHEN is key (5.00 / 5) (#8)
    by Josey on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:41:02 PM EST
    and it appears WHEN will be WHEN Obama declares himself the nominee.
    what scenario to you see (none / 0) (#16)
    by ksh on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:45:25 PM EST
    that would help Clinton's numbers? Seating both FL and MI at the current vote and in their full number?

    My take on that is that the Obama campaign would have a legitimate complaint, particularly with Michigan.

    Is there a compromise you like vis a vis timing and size.  I think Digby had an interesting compromise, but I just remember my reaction to it and don't remember it exactly or have a link.....I'll have to look around.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama has no legitimate complaint (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by angie on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:49:44 PM EST
    vis-a-vis MI -- he took his name of the ballot so he deprived the people who wanted to vote for him the opportunity to do so. There was no RULE requiring him to take his name off of the ballot. There was no reason for him to remove his name from the ballot other then a political gamble -- he bet heads, and tails came up. Tough luck to Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    Actually heads came up, over and over (5.00 / 4) (#43)
    by ineedalife on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:58:35 PM EST
    That gamble has paid off tremendously for Obama. He won Iowa and the rest is history. Now he isn't man enough to do the right thing and admit he has no rightful claim to MI's delegates other than to convince some uncommitteds. And he will get a good share of the uncommitteds, but he wants all of those plus some of the delegates Clinton earned.

    [ Parent ]
    Correct me if I'm wrong (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by ksh on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:04:02 PM EST
    Didn't she recently reject a plan that gave her the lead in both states? I think it was in April, but I'm a little lazy and don't want to research it.

    But why is he not "man enough"?

    It would be really great if folks who support seating and counting delegation votes would come up with a plan that's fair, that recognizes the original agreement by the states, the subsequent agreement by the candidates, and the votes of the electorate.

    What I'm hearing from Clinton supporters is that they want them seated and counted so that Clinton somehow comes out ahead.  And attacks on Obama for opposing this.

    I'm not hearing any compromise.

    [ Parent ]

    Bless your hear, you are wrong (5.00 / 6) (#72)
    by angie on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:09:25 PM EST
    Clinton rejected a plan that would give Obama some of the delegates that she earned via the actual votes! I understand that in Obamaland it is perfectly ok for Obama to receive delegates he didn't earn, but in the real world that is called vote stealing.

    [ Parent ]
    Thanks for the correction (none / 0) (#102)
    by ksh on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:18:00 PM EST
    but I think the point is the 'actual vote' when Obama wasn't on the ballot, isn't an actual vote.  I'm not sure where Obamaland is or why you think it would be stealing to come to a compromise that the two candidates can agree to when she agreed the votes wouldn't count to begin with.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes, it is an actual vote (5.00 / 2) (#138)
    by nycstray on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:37:55 PM EST
    one that he chose not to participate in.

    [ Parent ]
    One that not just Obama's, but all campaigns - (none / 0) (#172)
    by minordomo on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:55:16 PM EST
    - including Clinton's - chose not to participate in.

    [ Parent ]
    If you don't understand (5.00 / 2) (#143)
    by angie on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:40:05 PM EST
    that no one actually voted for Obama (due to his own choice of taking his name off of the ballot) and that, therefore, giving him credit for any votes as if he actually did get them is immoral, unethical, unfair and "vote stealing," then I can't help you. But bless your heart, I just know you are doing the best you can.

    [ Parent ]
    MHO (5.00 / 2) (#157)
    by Step Beyond on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:45:26 PM EST
    Because the votes aren't theirs to compromise. Votes cast by actual voters are non-negotiable. They are only owned by the voters, not the DNC nor the candidates. And the DNC and the candidates are not free to dole out them out like prizes. It is insulting that anyone would think that basing any allotment of delegates on a formula rather than the actual results enfranchises the voters.

    The reality of a vote isn't if the candidate you want is on or off the ballot. If someone doesn't want to appear on that ballot, it is their choice and in no way invalidates the vote.

    [ Parent ]

    Why in hell (5.00 / 1) (#212)
    by cal1942 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:31:16 PM EST
    isn't it an actual vote?

    As another commenter said:

    You don't get votes if you forfeit.  That's exactly what Obama did. Tough break.  A cynical calculation backfired. That's justice.

    The only FAIR distribution is what voters determined on Jan. 15.

    Get this straight: Only votes matter.

    [ Parent ]

    a little supporting reasoning..... (none / 0) (#173)
    by vicndabx on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:57:44 PM EST
    if one looks at all the events surrounding the early primaries with an objective eye; or if so inclined, an eye w/a speck of politics in it, he or she will surely realize why Obama was not on the Michigan ballot.  Following the rules?  As the Architect in The Matrix Reloaded says when asked about the Oracle, "please...."  Was it not true that Obama didn't have "name recognition?"  Weren't we hearing things to the effect of "Hillary's got the nomination locked up?  It's her time?"  I don't dis Obama for what he did (see the eye w/the speck,) but you gotta call it what it is - politics.  I've seen a lot of sports analogies, this was a strategy and it's been countered.  Can we be honest with ourselves so we can at the very least begin to deal with the current situation at that level?

    [ Parent ]
    oh and btw, (none / 0) (#183)
    by vicndabx on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:03:57 PM EST
    if you consider the politics aspect, and consider the strategies involved, big, normally dem states w/associated demographics vs. small, normally red states w/some "new" constituencies thrown in, and....the implied goal to discredit all things Clinton, what other motives can one ascribe to Obama's return to Iowa for the "victory" speech?  A little crow maybe?  Call me paranoid, but I too was once a high-minded idealist.

    [ Parent ]
    He was on the ballot...initially (none / 0) (#185)
    by kredwyn on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:04:21 PM EST
    Then he chose...opted...decided...to take his name off the ballot.

    He could do that...only...he'd have to live with the consequences--no votes for him in MI.

    [ Parent ]

    Why should it matter (1.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Sawyer on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:12:52 PM EST
    that Clinton pledged not to "participate" in these two states?  If you take a look at the definition of "participate" -- "to take or have a part or share, as with others" -- it's clear that it doesn't include Clinton's taking a part or share in the delegates.  Technically, with Obama's name off the ballot, she deserves all of them.  So Clinton should not be bound to her pledge in this case.

    [ Parent ]
    Huh? (none / 0) (#115)
    by minordomo on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:24:33 PM EST
    It's clear that "not participating in the election" doesn't include Clinton "taking a part or share in the delegates"...?

    How do you split that hair, specifically?

    [ Parent ]

    Someone help me out here... (1.00 / 2) (#210)
    by Sawyer on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:29:34 PM EST
    Just because Clinton wants to "take a part or share" in the Michigan and Florida elections doesn't mean she's "participating" -- which she pledged not to do -- ... even though the definition of "participate" is to "take a part or share" ... because any such pledge or established party rule should be necessarily overruled as a result of the widespread sexism employed by the mainstream media (with the noble exception of Fox News) against Hillary Clinton, the candidate clearly most deserving of the nomination.

    [ Parent ]
    Yeah, I don't think that flies (none / 0) (#32)
    by ksh on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:53:32 PM EST
    Most of the candidates did that and I would be shocked if the Rules Committee allowed an advantage to Clinton (such that she could take the nomination) via Michigan.  It's just not going to happen.

    [ Parent ]
    Heh (5.00 / 8) (#52)
    by Steve M on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:02:27 PM EST
    "Most of the candidates did that" because the Obama campaign put them up to it!

    Five individuals connected to five different campaigns have confirmed -- but only under condition of anonymity -- that the situation that developed in connection with the Michigan ballot is not at all as it appears on the surface. The campaign for Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, arguably fearing a poor showing in Michigan, reached out to the others with a desire of leaving New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton as the only candidate on the ballot. The hope was that such a move would provide one more political obstacle for the Clinton campaign to overcome in Iowa.


    [ Parent ]
    the author of your link (none / 0) (#75)
    by ksh on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:10:27 PM EST
    makes no sense and uses five anonymous sources.  Why couldn't Clinton yank her name from the ballot if author is right?

    [ Parent ]
    Heh (5.00 / 3) (#124)
    by Steve M on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:28:46 PM EST
    (1) because she cared about not alienating MI voters for the GE; and

    (2) because Obama and the other candidates waited until the very last moment before the deadline to pull this stunt.  In fact, it was so last-minute that Kucinich screwed up his paperwork and ended up staying on the ballot after all.

    The reporting at that link has never been refuted or even called into question in all the months that have passed.

    [ Parent ]

    And by most you mean 3 (5.00 / 4) (#57)
    by angie on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:04:12 PM EST
    Obama, Edwards & Richardson. The rest were on the ballot, so it not only flies it soars. This is not giving an advantage to Clinton who had enough respect for the voters to leave her name on the ballot, it is counting the votes of the people who actually voted for her. Every vote counts -- ever heard of it? This is a direct consequence of Obama's disingenuous actions in taking his name of the ballot as a political gamble and, thus, depriving those who wanted to vote for him the opportunity to do so. Now, of course the DNC is not going to do the right thing here -- which, make no mistake, is exactly what I propose -- because the DNC has moved heaven and earth to ensure that Obama gets the nomination even though he cannot do it on his own. They certainly are not going to change tacks now.

    [ Parent ]
    She signed a pledge and agreed (none / 0) (#111)
    by ksh on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:23:10 PM EST
    that the votes in Michigan and Florida wouldn't count and changed her mind when she realized she couldn't make an argument for the nomination without them.  My Clinton supporting friends actually told me they had a problem with her position on this. I mean, either she's got an integrity problem or she made a whopping strategic error.  Which is it?

    [ Parent ]
    She signed a pledge not to campaign. She had (5.00 / 3) (#131)
    by leis on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:34:03 PM EST
    absolutely no power to stop the DNC from stripping MI * Fl. And she said at the time it was a mistake that could be a problem in the GE.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama's got integrity problems... (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by tree on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:39:53 PM EST
    Barack Obama hinted during a Tampa fundraiser Sunday that if he's the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, he'll seat a Florida delegation at the party's national convention, despite national party sanctions prohibiting it.
    -September 30, 2007

    [ Parent ]
    But the rules! Now what is going to stop all (none / 0) (#154)
    by leis on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:44:35 PM EST
    the states from moving their primaries up if MI & Fl aren't severely punished?  

    Isn't that what we have been hearing from the Obama camp? Now he is going to save the day and abandon the ever important rules?  Rulebreaker.

    [ Parent ]

    What (none / 0) (#176)
    by carrienae on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:00:47 PM EST
    an arrogant ignorant prick this man is.

    [ Parent ]
    Why in the world (5.00 / 2) (#149)
    by americanincanada on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:42:39 PM EST
    do people insist on coming to this site and talking about a pledge when they obviously have no idea what it said?

    [ Parent ]
    Because facts don't matter to them (5.00 / 2) (#159)
    by angie on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:46:32 PM EST
    ensuring their guy "wins" -- no matter that they have to trample on the most sacrosanct principle of democracy that every vote counts to do it --is all that counts under their ROOLZ.

    [ Parent ]
    And, by the way, why would it matter if (none / 0) (#36)
    by ksh on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:56:30 PM EST
    all the candidates agreed, as did Clinton (don't make me go get that Clinton quote, heh), that Florida and Michigan wasn't going to count?

    She agreed, she's quoted saying that.

    Is your position that she was crossing her fingers?  I'm not saying don't seat them or don't count their votes in some manner, but Clinton shouldn't get an unfair advantage because she kept her name on the ballot when she agreed and acknowledged the votes wouldn't count.

    [ Parent ]

    It gets very quiet on here... (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by EddieInCA on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:04:06 PM EST
    ...whenever a poster asks about Clinton's agreement that the Michigan results would not count.

    In fact, many posters here act as though Clinton never made such a statement - even though there audiotape of it from the NPR interview.

    [ Parent ]

    We don't answer (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by angie on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:07:00 PM EST
    because this has been discussed several times & some people just don't seem to understand that a comment Clinton made way back when is not some sort of legally binding contract, as you seem to be implying. She thought that was the case; now she realizes it is not. Deal with it.

    [ Parent ]
    So the pledge she signed (none / 0) (#94)
    by ksh on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:14:06 PM EST
    and her subsequent quotes and her word were just mistakes?  

    It's an interesting position. It certainly looks like she changed her mind when she realized she needed the votes. The way you respond makes her look like she has an integrity issue.

    [ Parent ]

    The "pledge" she signed (none / 0) (#188)
    by vicsan on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:07:29 PM EST
    stated the candidates were not to campaign in the states. She didn't campaign in the states. What do you want? Her blood too? sheesh. Obama screwed up. Not Hillary. She shouldn't be punished for his stupid decision.

    [ Parent ]
    In addition, (none / 0) (#125)
    by vicndabx on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:30:03 PM EST
    if one looks at all the events surrounding those early primaries with an objective eye; or if so inclined, an eye with a speck of politics in it, he/she will surely come to the conclusion Obama took his name off the Michigan ballot to appeal to Iowa.  Why else do it?  Respect for the rules?  As the Architect in The Matrix Reloaded says when asked about the Oracle, "Please...."  As so many like to point out, at the time, Obama didn't have "name recognition," he wasn't the one who was supposedly being "handed" the nomination.  Proof-positive being his return to Iowa for the "victory" speech.  The what-I-said-earlier-doesn't apply now bug infects all of us.  Folks need to look a little deeper to really get a true understanding of what happened here.  This was Republican tactics 101 - use the current system to your advantage.  The Dems started really learning this after who?  could it be Clinton and the impeachment.  Followed up by Gore & FL?  

    [ Parent ]
    Interesting (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by Steve M on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:07:48 PM EST
    The comment you're responding to said Clinton agreed "that Florida and Michigan wasn't going to count."

    But your comment refers only to "Clinton's agreement that the Michigan results would not count."

    Interesting discrepancy from people who want to pass themselves off as the truth-tellers in this debate.  We'll set aside for the moment the attempt to make a response to a random caller on a talk radio show into some sort of binding agreement among the candidates.

    [ Parent ]

    you find that deceptive? (none / 0) (#80)
    by ksh on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:11:46 PM EST
    She did say they wouldn't count, so I'm not sure I get your point.

    [ Parent ]
    Really? (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by Steve M on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:20:35 PM EST
    If you want to pretend Florida was part of that quote, I can't stop you from lying, I guess.  Even the Obama supporter who agreed with you knows that isn't the case.

    The larger point is that you guys think something Hillary told a random caller on a talk show in New Hampshire is the mother of all gotchas, and we just don't agree.  Believe what you like, but don't lie and claim it was an agreement between the candidates, and don't lie and say she mentioned Florida when she didn't.

    [ Parent ]

    Far as I know - (none / 0) (#110)
    by minordomo on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:23:01 PM EST
    "We'll set aside for the moment the attempt to make a response to a random caller on a talk radio show into some sort of binding agreement among the candidates."

    - the agreement not to participate in the MI and FL elections was put in writing between the campaigns (including Clinton's) and the DNC.

    [ Parent ]

    Heh (5.00 / 2) (#128)
    by Steve M on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:30:58 PM EST
    First of all, you're wrong when you say the DNC was a party to the pledge.  It was only the four early states that demanded a pledge.

    More importantly, nothing in the pledge said that the elections in MI and FL wouldn't count.

    [ Parent ]

    Far as I know - (none / 0) (#190)
    by minordomo on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:08:31 PM EST
    - Dean and the DNC were involved. See here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmUVr_Qt2Wg&feature=related

    [ Parent ]
    Sorry (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by Steve M on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:17:00 PM EST
    Dean had nothing to do with the pledge.  Your link does not establish otherwise.

    [ Parent ]
    Do you mean the audiotape (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by cmugirl on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:10:49 PM EST
    Where she said that we can't alienate MI and FL?

    That one?

    [ Parent ]

    remember? (none / 0) (#118)
    by Ovah on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:25:15 PM EST
    no, the one where she said that she left her name on the Michigan ballot because "what does it matter, it won't count anyway"

    [ Parent ]
    Because (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by Step Beyond on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:52:03 PM EST
    it wasn't her choice to make. It doesn't matter who agrees or who doesn't agree. It doesn't matter who benefits and who doesn't benefit. It only matters that voters should NEVER be disenfranchised. That disenfranchising voters is always wrong. It's not a hard principle to understand but it certainly seems like it has become an easy principle to sell out this election.

    [ Parent ]
    Here's the official Clinton Press Release (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by wurman on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:02:57 PM EST
    Note the date.

    1/25/2008

    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."

    [My emphasis]

    I seem to post this constantly for the low information voters who try to be a TL-poster for a day.

    Furthermore, there is an all too common reference to a USA Today statement that someone in the Clinton campaign stated or restated or approved or authorized the 2025 winning number.  The nation's (toilet)paper references a website named "Political Base" (link) in which Mark Nickolas presents transcriptions of several conference calls, and in one of which Clinton's field director Guy Cecil uses the term 2025--but not in anyway that indicates the Clinton campaign views that as the winning number.

    This is all manure of the greenest, rankest odor.

    For myself, personally, this is becoming one of the most tiresome, boring, constantly reiterated & re-hashed lies of the entire campaign.

    The Press Release is & has been the official Clinton position since January.  End of non-story.

    -30-

    [ Parent ]

    THANK YOU! (none / 0) (#207)
    by vicsan on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:26:10 PM EST
    It really is getting old.

    [ Parent ]
    I don't know... (5.00 / 1) (#203)
    by kredwyn on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:21:11 PM EST
    Maybe she changed her mind. I have read somewhere  that she was one of the last to sign the pledge not to campaign.

    Obama is reported to have mentioned at a Florida fundraiser that he'd "do what's right by Florida voters" only to announce later on that Florida and Michigan would not count.

    Why do you suppose he did that?

    [ Parent ]

    So, why did Obama (none / 0) (#151)
    by tree on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:43:07 PM EST
    tell Florida voters, months before they voted, that he would seat the Florida delegation. Was he crossing his fingers? Or was he simply lying to the Florida voters? If he already agreed to seat them, why hasn't he, now that he's declared himself the presumptive nominee?

    [ Parent ]
    What is Obama's legitimate argument? (5.00 / 5) (#39)
    by cmugirl on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:57:39 PM EST
    Does he say to the committee:

    "Look, you publicly said at the time the delegates weren't going to count, and I knew I was going to lose anyway, so I got together with a few of the other candidates and we made a deal to remove our names from the ballot.  We knew this would make us look better to the voters in Iowa (and in my case, it worked - I squeaked out a win), but we also knew that Hillary was leaving her name on. I know I had my supporters working tirelessly doing radio and TV ads, and buying space in the local media across the state, where they specifically mentioned my name, and told my supporters to vote for "uncommitted" so that when the delegates were seated, I would get those.  Besides, we all thought it would be fun to stick it to Hillary, because, theoretically, "Uncommitted" (being the total of 4 candidates' votes) should have blown her out of the water.

    I made a campaign decision that at the time, and for a while now, looked like a good decision.  But now that it could backfire on me, I think you should just ignore the fact that I made a campaign decision, and you should take away from Hillary that which she has earned and give it to me."

    Is THAT the argument?

    [ Parent ]

    He'll argue: I am not a cherry picker. (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by oculus on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:03:10 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I bet he will be (none / 0) (#79)
    by cmugirl on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:11:36 PM EST
    if the DNC decides to enforce ALL the rules and strip him of FL for campaigning and holding a press conference!

    [ Parent ]
    Obama even left his name on the ballot (1.00 / 2) (#103)
    by Sawyer on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:18:22 PM EST
    in clear violation of his pledge not to "participate" -- which means "to take or have a part or share, as with others".  In other words, Obama himself pledged not to take or have a part or share in the pledged delegates from these states!  Nevermind that Hillary made the same pledge, she should not be bound to honor her word because of the latent sexism and anti-democratic tactics employed the mainstream media which is biased towards Obama (with the noble exception of Fox News)!

    [ Parent ]
    Re-vote in both states in June!! (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by abfabdem on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:04:43 PM EST
    Let's see once and for all who can take this thing in the GE.  Without it, everything else is just estimates, compromises and will upset huge groups no matter what the decision.  It's too King Solomon otherwise and you can't cut the baby in half.

    [ Parent ]
    FL should be counted as is! (none / 0) (#166)
    by Josey on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:51:18 PM EST
    Dem voters and delegates shouldn't be held accountable for tricks played by the GOP legislature.
    Florida didn't break the purpose of the rule that no primaries would be held before the 4 early states.


    [ Parent ]
    but (5.00 / 5) (#11)
    by Turkana on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:43:34 PM EST
    the roooooooooooooooolz!

    The roolz in place when primary dates (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by Cream City on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:46:32 PM EST
    were set in MI and FL may be the best compromise.

    Those rules were for the states to lose half of their delegates.  I am not at all in favor of the current rules, the result of the late-date amendment by the Obama delegates on the committee who stripped the states of all of their delegates.

    That amendment to the roolz, that blatant power grab, is the problem.  A solution is to revert to the original roolz.  I.e., roolz are roolz -- not amendments to roolz are the new roolz. :-)

    [ Parent ]

    Inconsequential. On NPR's (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by oculus on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:46:49 PM EST
    Morning Ed. today a political commenter sd. Bush won FL in 2000 because of his cred. with the Cuban ex pat. community.  Huh?  Dissing SCOTUS.

    [ Parent ]
    heh. How about (1.00 / 1) (#38)
    by ksh on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:57:17 PM EST
    her agreeeeeeeement?

    [ Parent ]
    You need to look up the word (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by MarkL on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:01:20 PM EST
    "agreement".
    By the way, someone posts the exact, fallacious argument you are making several times a day.
    It's quite boring.

    [ Parent ]
    well, here's some material (none / 0) (#134)
    by ksh on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:35:42 PM EST
        Clinton Campaign Statement on the Four State Pledge

        The following is a statement by Clinton Campaign Manager Patti Solis Doyle.

        "We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process.

        And we believe the DNC's rules and its calendar provide the necessary structure to respect and honor that role.

        Thus, we will be signing the pledge to adhere to the DNC approved nominating calendar."

    On September 2, 2007 the New York Times reported:

        Three of the major Democratic presidential candidates on Saturday pledged not to campaign in Florida, Michigan and other states trying to leapfrog the 2008 primary calendar, a move that solidified the importance of the opening contests of Iowa and New Hampshire.

        Hours after Senator Barack Obama of Illinois and former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina agreed to sign a loyalty pledge put forward by party officials in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York followed suit. The decision seemed to dash any hopes of Mrs. Clinton relying on a strong showing in Florida as a springboard to the nomination.

        "We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process," Patti Solis Doyle, the Clinton campaign manager, said in a statement.

        The pledge sought to preserve the status of traditional early-voting states and bring order to an unwieldy series of primaries that threatened to accelerate the selection process. It was devised to keep candidates from campaigning in Florida, where the primary is set for Jan. 29, and Michigan, which is trying to move its contest to Jan. 15.

        The Democratic National Committee has vowed to take away Florida's 210 delegates -- and those of any other state that moved its nominating contest before Feb. 5 -- if it does not come up with an alternative plan.

    So my position is that she agreed to the pledge and later stated her agreement that the votes would not count.  

    [ Parent ]

    How about that? (5.00 / 2) (#174)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:58:56 PM EST
    A pledge NOT TO CAMPAIGN now magically becomes a pledge to do what? Not count the votes? Not seat the delegates?

    Hell, clinton did not even have the power to agree to either.

    This is just plain ridiculous and shameful now.

    Buhdy, your friend is lying again.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama was the only one to break the pledge (none / 0) (#181)
    by Josey on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:03:18 PM EST
    and campaign at a small rally in FL - and air TV ads.
    Just prior to the Jan. 29 primary, Hillary's press release said everything would be done to see that all the votes were counted.
    Obama sent press release saying FL votes would not count. And yet, Obamites, Al Sharpton, etc were screaming about FL voters unaware of the primary date.

    [ Parent ]
    Floridian (none / 0) (#204)
    by Step Beyond on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:21:35 PM EST
    I don't remember Obama campaigning at a small rally during the shunning. He attended fundraisers, as they were allowed, but I don't remember any candidate having any rallies during the shunning. Do you have a link/source for that?

    [ Parent ]
    Where does it say (none / 0) (#209)
    by kredwyn on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:28:07 PM EST
    in there that the votes weren't going to count?

    She just stated that she'd not campaign in the state.

    [ Parent ]

    What agreement? (3.66 / 3) (#48)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:01:02 PM EST
    You know, lies do not go over well here.

    If you are not familiar with the subject then either ask questions or be quiet.

    [ Parent ]

    Gosh (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by Steve M on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:04:36 PM EST
    Don't you think what she told some random caller on a New Hampshire talk show constitutes a binding agreement between all the candidates?  Really now.

    [ Parent ]
    Indeed (none / 0) (#165)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:51:11 PM EST
    The so called lawyering in this thread is laughable.

    I may just write a post on estoppel and contract to make fools of some of these people who seem to know not a damn thing they are talking about on this legally.

    [ Parent ]

    It seems to me (5.00 / 2) (#180)
    by Steve M on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:03:14 PM EST
    the element of reliance is most certainly missing, unless someone wants to suggest the Obama campaign based its strategic decisions on whatever Hillary said on that call-in radio show.

    The reality that NO ONE will talk about is that everyone on the inside of this process has always known that those elections could very well end up counting.  Each campaign had to decide how to deal with that difficult situation.

    The Obama campaign made a strategic decision to pull their name off the Michigan ballot, and to induce other candidates to do the same, in order to pander to the early states and minimize the chance that the election would end up being counted.  Indeed, if they were 100% sure the election would never count for anything, there would be no point in expending the effort to remove his name.  They most likely figured "once we get our name off, it's going to be really hard for anyone to try and count this election after the fact."

    But the reality that the election COULD be counted was the reason for the whole strategy decision in the first place!  Only the clueless supporters act like everyone has always known, with 100% certainty, that those elections would not count right up until the moment Hillary decided to change the rules.  Heck, every major newspaper in Florida urged people to get out and vote because of the likelihood that the votes would end up counting for something.  I'm so tired of living in this world of legalistic arguments that bears so little resemblance to the real world.

    [ Parent ]

    Please do (none / 0) (#202)
    by digdugboy on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:20:46 PM EST
    It'll be funny to watch you miss the point again and again.

    McCain
    [ Parent ]
    Wow! You are calling ksh a liar??? (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by buhdydharma on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:30:57 PM EST
    Can you please back that up?

    And telling her to be quiet?

    What the hell?


    [ Parent ]

    Indeed (none / 0) (#150)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:42:49 PM EST
    I ask that she stop lying and if you lie, my dear friend, I will call you a liar too.

    I do not pull my punches.

    Agreement is a word with a soecifici meaning ans it has been discussed at this site for many months now.

    ksh knows this and decided to lie. I told her to stop lying.

    If you lie, I will tell you to stop lying.

    [ Parent ]

    Since you are besmirching her reputation (none / 0) (#182)
    by buhdydharma on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:03:44 PM EST
    to this extent, please provide a link proving that ksh KOWINGLY lied.

    I don't think that is too much to ask, since reputation is all we have on the net.

    You are both friends of mine, I can not give you the benefit of the doubt. This is very distressing.

    Thank you in advance for your proof that this strong, insulting accusation is the indisputable truth, and not some sort of bias brought on by the heat of the candidate war.  

    [ Parent ]

    Excuse me (none / 0) (#191)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:09:06 PM EST
    He repeated false statements after being told and proven she is wrong. Her deliberate misstatement of the 4 State pledge is all the proof an HONEST person would need.

    I think she has proven it herself in this very thread. Please review it carefully. She has besmirched herself.

    this is not uncommon in the blogs this campoaign season as Clinton Derangement Syndrome and Obama Cultism has taken normally honest and intelligent people and made idiots of them.

    Obviously ksh is a friend of your. Please take her back to DD with you. we have actually hashed out these issues long ago and she is rehashing the same tired moronic arguments that have been utterly refuted here for months.

    We do not want it here anymore. We are meanies.

    [ Parent ]

    I see...no link then? (none / 0) (#213)
    by buhdydharma on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:32:34 PM EST
    And since all I see on this site is Clinton Derangement Syndrome on the part of her supporters, and these are the people who have allegedly "utterly refuted" her argument....

    ....you want me to just take your word over hers that not only has the argument been refuted, but that ksh is somehow a knowing party to that refutation and is choosing to lie about it.

    Your word is good, she is a liar, no proof.

    Check.

    [ Parent ]

    This agreement. (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by minordomo on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:44:54 PM EST
    It's called the Four State Pledge: http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/070831_Final_Pledge.pdf

    Here's Clinton's press release confirming that they will abide by this pledge: http://www.docstrangelove.com/2008/03/13/hillary-clinton-and-the-pledge/

    Here is a YouTube video that runs down some of the chronology on this topic, including Hillary's confirmation that they will abide by the pledge, but also a mention that a 100% loss is actually mentioned in the bylaws, contrary to some claims I've seen on this site: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmUVr_Qt2Wg&feature=related

    Here is a YouTube video of Hillary saying that "it's clear this election they're having is not going to count for anything: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xHRqi8nsvI&feature=related

    I'm not sure what the lie that you refer to is supposed to be.

    And I don't know why Steve M keeps going on about this just being something that happened on a radio show - he should familiarize himself with the subject, as you suggested.

    [ Parent ]

    The 4 State Pledge (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:01:03 PM EST
    a pledge about what the candidates could actually PLEDGE about - not to campaign.

    The candidate did not not and could not pledge not to count the votes or seats the delegates.

    You see, it was not within their power to do either.

    I am sick of the stupidity. Absolutely sick of it.

    We have heard these moronic arguments for months now and I am left to say one thing - you people are just plain idiots and/or liars.

    [ Parent ]

    Your references are essentially bogus. (5.00 / 1) (#211)
    by wurman on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:31:15 PM EST
    Sen. Clinton does not state that she approves or agrees with the ruling, nor that she accepts the disenfranchisement in either of the print documents.  Your sources only establish that she promised not to campaign &, in fact, did not.

    The YouTube where she says "this election they're having is not going to count for anything" is from October 2007.  Subsequently, the Clinton campaign attempted many times to set up a re-vote & they still think MI could have one in August.

    Her position since then has been AGAINST a variety of foolish attempts to use the results which she had already described as "not going to count for anything."  Get it?  Can you follow?

    I know it's tough.  The argument goes like this: if you're now going to count what you told me you would not count, then I win.  You don't get to say that it counts & then come up with a new or different method that favors my opponent.  If you don't like that, then let's have a re-count.

    See, it's not all that difficult.

    [ Parent ]

    Site violator (none / 0) (#158)
    by waldenpond on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:46:16 PM EST
    New commentors are limited to 10 comments per day.  I believe you are now over 35.

    [ Parent ]
    Your references are essentially bogus. (none / 0) (#214)
    by wurman on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:40:40 PM EST
    Sen. Clinton does not state that she approves or agrees with the ruling, nor that she accepts the disenfranchisement in either of the print documents.  Your sources only establish that she promised not to campaign &, in fact, did not.

    The YouTube where she says "this election they're having is not going to count for anything" is from October 2007.  Subsequently, the Clinton campaign attempted many times to set up a re-vote & they still think MI could have one in August.

    Her position since then has been AGAINST a variety of foolish attempts to NOT use the results which she had already described as "not going to count for anything."  Get it?  Can you follow?  The DNC poobahs have said they want to seat MI (& FL) & Sen. Clinton as said OK, I agree, good idea, let's do it.

    Then the argument goes like this: if you're now going to count what you told me you would not count, then I win.  You don't get to say that it counts & then come up with a new or different method that favors my opponent.  If you don't like that, then let's have a re-count.

    See, it's not all that difficult.

    [ Parent ]

    How about (none / 0) (#95)
    by digdugboy on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:14:26 PM EST
    implied consent? Waiver? Estoppel?

    She acknowledged the DNC's ruling. She didn't protest it at the time. One of her surrogates, Harold Ickes, voted for it. If she didn't impliedly consent to it, she certainly waived her right to complain about it by not complaining until the ruling went contrary to her personal interests.

    Likewise, Obama changed his position based upon the DNC ruling that she did not complain about. He changed his position in reliance on the ruling and her implied consent to it by removing his name from the MI ballot.

    That's enough for any fair minded person to be the equivalent of her agreement to abide the DNC's ruling.

    McCain
    [ Parent ]

    Yes (none / 0) (#119)
    by Steve M on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:25:17 PM EST
    Estoppel is typically the word I use for that argument when I'm looking to ridicule it.

    This is politics, not law, and the fact that none of the candidates made a big stink about MI and FL before the early states were decided is solely a function of the fact that they didn't want to alienate the early states.

    Your test, that if Hillary is serious she must commit political suicide in IA and NH by loudly demanding that MI and FL be allowed to move their elections up, is just ludicrous.  I'm glad you find it a compelling argument but I wonder how many months will go by before you realize there are no takers.

    [ Parent ]

    but this position doesn't help Clinton (none / 0) (#137)
    by ksh on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:37:48 PM EST
    it makes her look like she was being politically expedient when she made her pledge and then the same when she makes the argument that these votes should count as they are.  It feeds the integrity negative.

    [ Parent ]
    Fine (none / 0) (#146)
    by Steve M on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:41:30 PM EST
    I will stipulate that Hillary Clinton is a politician.  Whatever.

    I hope you are not foolish enough to believe that Obama and all the other candidates have been guided by nothing but high-minded principle with regard to this issue.

    [ Parent ]

    did the candidates pledge (none / 0) (#192)
    by Josey on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:09:10 PM EST
    to not allow their names on a ballot from a state that voted prior to Feb. 5?
    They pledged not to campaign.

    [ Parent ]
    estoppel is a concept based (none / 0) (#147)
    by ksh on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:41:53 PM EST
    in equity and common law and is especially poignant and pertinent here, I think....the argument being that the candidate's actions in the past estop her from reaping benefits now.

    [ Parent ]
    I really wish you would estop. (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by leis on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:00:33 PM EST
    Go ahead delete me BTD, but I couldn't resist that one.

    [ Parent ]
    I hope he doesn't (none / 0) (#195)
    by ksh on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:14:43 PM EST
    that was funny.

    [ Parent ]
    It is especially NOT applicable here (none / 0) (#163)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:49:38 PM EST
    The estoppel argument would go to the argument to NOT campaign in FL and MI. There simply was NO AGREEMENT whatsover, no RELIANCE whatsover on anything said or done by clinton regaridng counting the vote and seating the delegates.

    Let's do play lawyer here. Please cite your best LEGAL case that would support your estoppel argument against Hillary Clinton (not the voters of FL or MI BTW, also parties in interest).

    Make the legal argument as you would to a Court. You will find how weak and ridiculous your argument is if you actually tried to apply it in legal fashion.

    Please do. I want to demolish it.

    [ Parent ]

    ahem (none / 0) (#194)
    by ksh on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:13:52 PM EST
    She agreed. That's what I meant by her agreement.  No, she didn't sign a contract.  She signed a pledge not to campaign and later stated the votes didn't count.  That's her agreement with the DNC's position on the primary jumping.  

    I'm not interested in playing into legal machismo Armando. It's clear: she pledged, she agreed in her statements that the votes wouldn't count, she later changed her mind.

    All well and good, except she shouldn't be able to reap an extraordinary benefit after her pledged and her agreement with the DNC (by saying so) that the votes wouldn't count. Is "assent" a better word for you?  I could live with that as it's her word (which, in my mind should be as good as paper).

    My solution is a compromise: cut it down to 50 % by all metrics and seat them.  

    As for demolishing any legal argument, the person who yells loudest doesn't win.  You know that. Rather than pound the table, why don't you look at the facts and weigh the equity of a popular vote count (since you seem to think popular vote matters -- I don't) that disallows any Obama vote in Michigan and counts PR but not caucus states.  Then think of the equity of giving her delegates in a race where others didn't compete.

    My take is that if, through some set of circumstances, Clinton became the nominee, her claim to it would be tainted by an unfair resolution to Michigan and Florida.  I don't see why some of her supporters would want that, especially since she would lose the youth vote, the Black vote, and the votes of disaffected Obama supporters on top of the unfortunate ability to bring out Clinton haters to vote for the anemic John McCain.  In other words, she is passed the point where obtaining the nomination through this path would help her win the general.  

    [ Parent ]

    None of these arguments apply (none / 0) (#160)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:46:36 PM EST
    on the question of whether the votes would count or the delegates be seated.

    The PLEDGE was not to campaign in Florida and Michigan. that was it.

    Period.

    If you REALLY want to play lawyer on this, I suggest you look up the requirements of the estoppel argument.

    For example, one of the requirements is that it have a basis in EQUITY.

    [ Parent ]

    Try again (none / 0) (#200)
    by digdugboy on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:18:38 PM EST
    Did I say anything about the pledge? No. See if you can figure out why your response completely misses the mark.

    McCain
    [ Parent ]
    How is that a lie? (none / 0) (#116)
    by ksh on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:24:53 PM EST
    You can ban me I guess, if you want BTD, but why am I a liar? Did she not agree that the votes wouldn't count?

    [ Parent ]
    How about... (none / 0) (#148)
    by cmugirl on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:42:34 PM EST
    Assuming everyone takes your argument and runs with it.

    When it all comes down to it - WHO CARES what pledges were made? (especially when all the players knew they were bogus - hence the telling people to still go out and vote,and in the case of Michigan, to vote uncommitted)

    This is a case of:  do you want to be the party that stands for letting all the votes count and treating everyone equally, or do you want to be the Republicans of 2000?

    If Obama keeps fighting this, he is no better than Bush.

    [ Parent ]

    Excuse me (none / 0) (