home

Why Obama Needs To Fight To Seat Florida

Rassmussen tells the tale:

FLORIDA

Obama 40
McCain 50

Clinton 47
McCain 41

Nuff said.

By Big Tent Democrat

< Electability MO Style | Florida 2000 Redux: The Media Against The Voters >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    What will it change? (5.00 / 6) (#1)
    by Kathy on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:48:07 PM EST
    I mean, if he suddenly started whistling a new tune, what would it change?  Would Floridians say, "hey, no problem.  We forgive you!"  How many more groups does he get to trample on then win back--especially in the space of six months until the ge?

    And what makes you think he has any inkling other than to try every back room maneuvering he can pull off to stop this from happening?

    Floridians Haven't Forgotten Or Forgiven the (5.00 / 5) (#3)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:49:46 PM EST
    2000 debacle yet.  Only one with a messiah complex would even deign to think he could garner their votes after kicking them to the curb.

    Parent
    Floridian are not bitter (none / 0) (#11)
    by ibextati on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:56:21 PM EST
    In 2004 Floridian gave a bigger margin win to G.W, the guy who stole the 2000 election.

    Parent
    You do realize that the reason that (5.00 / 5) (#48)
    by Florida Resident on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:16:51 PM EST
    Florida Democrats fought so hard for a paper verification trail on electronic voting was because of 2004?  I mean that is why we had the Democrats voting for the Jan 29 primary, because the Republicans tied it to the paper trail in the same bill.

    Parent
    Maybe that was because there was a crooked Bush (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by cpa1 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:34:07 PM EST
    in the state.

    If FL and MI are back, there will be no first ballot win for Obama and he knows that can mean big problems for him.

    Parent

    it is toooooooo late! (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by hellothere on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:06:58 PM EST
    once the bell has rung, the fat lady has sung, the ship has gone down, the last sailor is off the boat, the door has closed. but that's me. just for grins let wait and see how accurate i am.

    Parent
    i thought it (none / 0) (#65)
    by txpolitico67 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:27:00 PM EST
    was, that ship has sailed.  

    Parent
    Or maybe the fat lady is off the boat. (none / 0) (#90)
    by derridog on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:37:15 PM EST
    it'd be hard to get on the ship if it has (none / 0) (#108)
    by hellothere on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:52:30 PM EST
    sailed.

    Parent
    Nominate Hillary. Problem Solved! (5.00 / 2) (#152)
    by itsadryheat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:03:00 AM EST
    He's just the wrong guy to nominate when the delegates finally get around to actually casting their ballots.

    So many diaries on so many sites about how Senator Obama and his team can possible unify, seek forgiveness, re-commit to, win over, cause to see he shares their values, convince he is qualified, show he is adept at foreign policy, frind a remedy for...

    Maybe the realy solution to all of these problems is to nominate Hillary for the sake of the Party and the voters and the White House.

    The superdelegates' job is to act in the best interest of the party.  CNN is reporting today that 32% of Hillary voters from yesterday's exit poll would vote for Obama in nov.  43% of Hillary voters will vote for McCain and the rest stay home.  The same poll found 71% of Obama voters would vote for Hillary in Nov.

     Norah Odonnell did a piece on whether they meant it using the last elections.  She found that those who said they would vote for Bush rather than Kerry did, but in larger numbers than had admitted it to polsters.

    Seems like all these problems can be solved easily and some of our reputation of acting like Republicans not wanting to count the votes will be healed.

     First we can't reward anybody who thinks their calendar or committee or candidate is a higher democratic value than enfranchising the voters and counting the votes. Then we can win the votes of the people.

    Parent

    i like your solution. (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by hellothere on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:44:46 AM EST
    YIKES!! Honestly, I do not know why he thinks (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:48:21 PM EST
    FLA will welcome him at all.

    What I can't understand is why. . . (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:00:17 PM EST
    he went to Florida this week -- since he doesn't seem to have announced any resolution to the delegate standoff.  The media (well, NPR) was full of "milestone" stories until he spoke in Florida when they switched over to delegate conflict stories.

    Parent
    Unfortunately, there seems to be no rhyme or (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:09:33 PM EST
    reason for many things obama.  Maybe he is so deluded he thinks he has done nothing wrong!

    Parent
    He does have a problem (4.66 / 3) (#47)
    by stillife on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:16:48 PM EST
    with geography.  Maybe he has Florida confused with Montana or South Dakota?

    Parent
    He thought he was in the 57th state. (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by Angel on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:28:01 PM EST
    SNAP, Pt. 2 (none / 0) (#75)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:29:29 PM EST
    you might be onto something! This campaign (none / 0) (#49)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:18:09 PM EST
    has been one where up is down, black is white, etc.....scary!

    Parent
    Aren't the Great Lakes (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by stillife on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:20:56 PM EST
    in the middle of Florida?

    Parent
    Lake Superior (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by txpolitico67 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:28:03 PM EST
    Obama relates well to those constituents

    Parent
    Wasn't that lake (5.00 / 4) (#73)
    by stillife on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:29:04 PM EST
    named after Obama?

    Parent
    No Just The Gas Pumps n/t (none / 0) (#148)
    by MO Blue on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:34:17 PM EST
    SNAP!!! (none / 0) (#74)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:29:11 PM EST
    You Are Quick....That's What I Like About Ya.. (none / 0) (#79)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:30:57 PM EST
    They are now....and the everglades are in (none / 0) (#64)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:26:55 PM EST
    Utah!

    Parent
    Nope, in the 57th state - Canada (none / 0) (#81)
    by MMW on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:32:09 PM EST
    Obama knows the president of Canada (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by americanincanada on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:37:52 PM EST
    well, he said so.

    Not sure if he knows the Prime Minister at all.

    Parent

    How's Canada's "President" (none / 0) (#89)
    by stillife on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:36:42 PM EST
    doing these days?

    Parent
    It's the Obama Audacity Tour 2008 (5.00 / 5) (#63)
    by Anne on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:26:28 PM EST
    "Taking Hubris to Levels Never Seen Before."

    Parent
    I Love That !! But You Missed The Audacity (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:28:15 PM EST
    of Hate Tour over at the orange place and the greek lady's blog!  

    Parent
    And the theme song is... (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by Anne on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:46:15 PM EST
    "A's for All the votes that he won't count

    U is for the Upside down world view

    D is for the Delegates he's buying

    A's for always saying, "Hey, me, too."

    C is for the coolness he imagines

    I's for his most favorite subject, too.

    T is for the typical white people

    Y's for yakking 'til the end of time.

    Put it all together, it spells "Audacity,"

    Coming to a disenfranchised state near you.

    "Thank you, America - no one will do more for the 57 states than I will!!!"

    Parent

    ann cut that out. my asthma is acting up (none / 0) (#111)
    by hellothere on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:54:09 PM EST
    and i keep laughing!

    Parent
    Better Watch It Or obama Will Want You To (none / 0) (#130)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:27:33 PM EST
    come work for him.

    Parent
    He was originally going to (none / 0) (#98)
    by nycstray on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:42:43 PM EST
    announce victory last night, so maybe this was the beginning of his victory tour? He used Edwards to stomp out last weeks loss and try and gain points in MI . . .

    Parent
    S C R E W E D (5.00 / 6) (#4)
    by andgarden on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:50:14 PM EST


    I have family in Florida that used to like him (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by athyrio on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:52:01 PM EST
    but they changed their minds and are quite hardened against him now...Fighting at this point is like closing the door of the barn after the horses run out...

    I don't blame them (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by miguelito on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:52:09 PM EST
    one bit

    Oh boy (5.00 / 5) (#7)
    by Step Beyond on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:53:14 PM EST
    Now Obama is saying seating the delegates may be ok but counting the popular vote isn't.

    The Buzz

    Does the popular vote in Florida count for anything, we asked Sen. Barack Obama on the ride from Tampa to Orlando: "Look, I think it's fair to say that in all these races if I didnt campaign at all and this had just been a referendum on name recognition, Sen. Clinton would be the nominee. That's true in Iowa, that's true in practically every state we've won. It's pretty hard to make an argument that somehow you winning what is essentially a name recognition contest in Florida was a good measure of electoral strength there. It"s even tougher to make that argument in Michigan where my name wasn't even on the ballot.

    Obama also said splitting Florida's delegation in half based on the Jan. 29 result - which was the GOP penalty what many see as the most likely outcome of the DNC rules committee on 5/31 - would be "a very reasonable solution."

    I would like to inform him after reading this:

    He made no apologies for signing a pledge to boycott Florida: "Everybody signed that. It was voluntary in name only. Had we not agreed to that we would be in a position where on the one hand the DNC was telling you this won't count, on the other hand you've gone out of your way to offend the first two states where you know that it will count. I would hardly call that voluntary."

    That voluntary doesn't mean without cost or that it is easy. Not everyone signed that pledge. I had hoped that at least one of the major candidates would have had the leadership and character to not sign the pledge and say that running for the position of President of the United States means all 50 states. Not that they would have had to campaign, but just not promise to shun. Then after reiterating the importance of the early states, go ahead and campaign like heck in them.

    This is why I see no unity (5.00 / 4) (#15)
    by masslib on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:58:18 PM EST
    with Obama.

    Parent
    those poor unity ponies already out of (none / 0) (#112)
    by hellothere on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:55:23 PM EST
    a job. i guess it's back to central park and the tourists.

    Parent
    This is (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:03:48 PM EST
    even making things worse. Apparently he's afraid of the final popular vote number. He sees himself losing it.

    Parent
    Because nobody had heard his name... (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by dianem on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:09:11 PM EST
    ...in the months prior to the election. It's not as if the papers were putting articles every day on the front page about the "Historic" election between a woman named Clinton and a black man named Barack Obama. It's not as if he was running national ad campaigns that included Florida. Or maybe he had received a massive amount of press coverage as the keynote speaker at the 2004 convention. He was a complete unknown to all of those voters. Really.

    Parent
    He won Iowa (none / 0) (#45)
    by pie on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:15:11 PM EST
    and then lost in New Hampshire.  It was on teevee all the time.

    People know him now, but I can't see him ever winning Florida.

    Parent

    Teddy (none / 0) (#151)
    by CHDmom on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:55:37 PM EST
    Wasn't the week before Florida when Teddy and Carloine endorsed Obama and CNN and MSNBC had the day long Obama love fest?

    Parent
    way to go! (5.00 / 3) (#59)
    by Robert Oak on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:24:10 PM EST
    I think Bill Clinton compared the DNC to the GOP in 2000 today....well, you can bet that Obama is going to look like George Bush over this, refusing to count FL.  Let's see, we've got WV, Ohio, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Florida for sure, possibly Michigan (hard to lose a state where the GOP candidate brings the queen of offshore outsourcing, Carly Fiorina to talk economics to them)...now what's going to happen here according to the Obama camp?  They are going to turn which states blue?  Montana, Idaho, Colorado, Mississippi?

    This is a joke.

    Parent

    it's quite fitting (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by stillife on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:33:16 PM EST
    that the movie "Recount" will be airing on HBO this weekend.  

    Parent
    I knew Obama was reminding me of someone . . . . (none / 0) (#149)
    by abfabdem on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:45:08 PM EST
    hmmm--a guy with a light resume, more "fun" to be around than his wonky opponent, gets tired easily and needs time off, doesn't want to count votes in Florida . . . .

    Parent
    This is the dumbest political move evah. (5.00 / 3) (#72)
    by madamab on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:29:03 PM EST
    Until the NEXT thing Obama does.

    Parent
    Did he check with Dean on that (none / 0) (#103)
    by nycstray on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:45:39 PM EST
    it seems to be the opposite of what he said . . .

    Parent
    Heh (5.00 / 10) (#8)
    by Steve M on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:53:55 PM EST
    I do not think Obama has even a 1% chance to win Florida.  The demographics are utterly fatal.

    If I were him, I'd start looking for some rule to keep them from having any electoral votes in November.

    Those Poll Numbers (5.00 / 4) (#20)
    by talex on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:01:38 PM EST
    are just another reason WE DON'T AGREE WITH KOS.

    The online community has been split and damaged forever IMO. Kos, Josh, and many others knowingly chased away half their readership with no remorse and chased away a lot of votes too.

    Parent

    He could try to convince them... (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by dianem on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:05:28 PM EST
    ...to hold their Presidential election in August. Maybe the FEC would then ban them from having their votes counted. No... come to think of it, the FEC would never do anything that stupid.

    Parent
    Obama (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by tek on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:55:34 PM EST
    only acts to help himself and "fight" does not seem to be a word in his vocabulary, IMHO.

    And When Combined (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by The Maven on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:56:07 PM EST
    with other polling data this week from SurveyUSA for Ohio, Missouri and North Carolina (?!?!), all showing Clinton with a lead over McCain, versus a McCain lead over Obama, one really has to wonder how the superdelegates who've been coming out to endorse Obama have managed to willfully blind themselves to all this (admittedly non-binding and early) data.

    Not to mention other states like Arkansas or West Virginia, which could be pulled back into the "D" column by Clinton, but not by Obama (I don't think I'm going out on a limb by observing that).  Or, of course, the big swingers of Pennsylvania and Michigan.

    Obama has an edge in Colorado, Iowa, and perhaps Nevada and Virginia, but the electoral vote disparity should be obvious here.  This isn't to say that Obama can't win in November, only that the road is likely going to be far more difficult.

    I'm in Pennsylvania right now. . . (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:57:58 PM EST
    Or, of course, the big swingers of Pennsylvania and Michigan.

    It doesn't swing.

    Parent

    you're talking about elections right (none / 0) (#19)
    by ChuckieTomato on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:00:55 PM EST
    grrrr (none / 0) (#82)
    by txpolitico67 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:32:26 PM EST
    i was wondering the same thing Chuckie

    Parent
    It May Be (none / 0) (#23)
    by The Maven on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:02:27 PM EST
    the lack of sleep (working until between 2:15 and 4:30 a.m. most days backing up a short trial), but are you suggesting that PA is a Democratic lock in November -- which is a good thing, clearly -- or making a statement about the relative cultural opportunities afforded throughout the Keystone State?

    Parent
    The latter. n/t (none / 0) (#27)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:04:37 PM EST
    In Case There Are Any Keystoners Out There . . . (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by The Maven on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:09:27 PM EST
    . . . duck!

    Parent
    It's after 10pm. (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:15:25 PM EST
    They're all asleep.  I'm not worried.

    Parent
    That's enough about my state! (none / 0) (#52)
    by andgarden on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:20:11 PM EST
    Of course, this is Terry Pinder's (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by oculus on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:22:25 PM EST
    constant lament also.

    Parent
    Between Paoli and Penn Hills (none / 0) (#43)
    by andgarden on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:12:11 PM EST
    Pennsylvania is Alabama without the blacks. (that's the Carvile quote).

    Parent
    No, his better bet. . . (5.00 / 5) (#12)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:56:34 PM EST
    is to try to get them disqualified in November as well!

    Beat you to it n/t (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by Steve M on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:09:14 PM EST
    Listen, buddy. . . (5.00 / 5) (#51)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:20:09 PM EST
    you don't see me horning in on your action, posting lengthy insightful political and news analysis, do you?  Can we leave the one-liners to me?  Huh?

    Parent
    Hey (5.00 / 4) (#87)
    by Steve M on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:35:03 PM EST
    Come for the quick wit, stay for the boring lecture!

    I've always said that on the Internet, it's not how funny you are, it's how fast you type.

    Parent

    Actually, I'VE always said. .. (5.00 / 3) (#96)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:41:33 PM EST
    it's not how fnnuy you aer, its howfsat you ytpe.

    Parent
    I really wanted Fla. (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Lil on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:00:27 PM EST
    to turn blue this year. Quite the drama being played out. I really think a unity ticket is the only way to do it. In essence they both have Half of the Democratic party at their backs; we need both halves to win. I wasn't a proponenet of that before but neither loser's supporters will fully support the winner without their preferred candidate on board, IMO. If Obama survives this PR battle re: Fla. it will be because the media frames it to his favor, because he is plain wrong about not counting all the votes. He could have done a revote...

    Are they trying to run an experiment? (5.00 / 4) (#22)
    by dianem on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:01:43 PM EST
    Just how many voters can you piss off and still win an election? So far, we have voters in two states, middle-aged women, rural whites, and anybody who liked Bill Clinton's Presidency. And that's just the Democrats. I'm not even going to try to describe all of the right wing groups who think Obama's election would be the end of America as we know it.

    take a good look at the way obama won't (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by hellothere on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:04:05 PM EST
    fight for us. what does he have for november? all those dog whistles won't work. crying about being picked on won't work. calling voters bitter won't work. i really wonder what in heaven's name has happened to the democratic party. talk about being out of touch and not giving a darn!

    & don't forget (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by txpolitico67 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:34:14 PM EST
    not voting for him makes you a RACIST!

    i am SICK of that meme!

    Parent

    Me too (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by nell on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:40:19 PM EST
    Check out this t-shirt CNN is selling, "Clinton Urged to Reject Votes of Racists." It makes me furious. FURIOUS. Where is Obama shirt about rejecting the votes of sexists?

    http://tinyurl.com/5jeswm

    Parent

    winning the ge in his mind it seems! (none / 0) (#106)
    by hellothere on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:50:48 PM EST
    Oh my GAWD (none / 0) (#107)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:52:01 PM EST
    Time for a letter-writing campaign.

    Parent
    as (none / 0) (#119)
    by BethanyAnne on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:07:25 PM EST
    desperately sick as I am of being called a sexist for not supporting Hillary, no doubt

    Parent
    Oh please. (none / 0) (#121)
    by rooge04 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:09:34 PM EST
    The only people being called sexist around here is the MEDIA and Obama blogs for clearly attacking Hillary along GENDER lines. Separate and apart from her policies.  Support Obama all you want that doesn't make you a sexist.   Using sexist and misogynist language and imagery to attack Hillary DOES.

    Parent
    well when i was younger i heard the word (none / 0) (#155)
    by hellothere on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:51:28 AM EST
    racy a few times. but that's not what you meant, huh?

    Parent
    It's sad (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Coldblue on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:04:59 PM EST
    because Hillary won't be given the opportunity to beat McCain. Instead, we have to watch the apparent Democratic nominee lose...again.

    He beats him in a caucus in Iowa. (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by leis on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:05:00 PM EST


    we can cheer up because kos and the (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by hellothere on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:10:37 PM EST
    cool kids will write ugly diaries about mccain. the rev wright will say a few words. michelle will say that repubs are mean. i mean i can see the ground swell from all of this.

    BTD, aren't those numbers exactly why he (5.00 / 5) (#44)
    by rooge04 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:14:02 PM EST
    DOESN'T want to fight for FL and MI? He knows they are a lost cause for him.

    And let me just say that the whole "name recognition" thing is beyond old and beyond stale and beyond stupid.  He literally used that excuse for losing WV and KY-- people didn't know him. OH please. For the first time in ages about 80% of the entire American public has knowledge of this primary. But yeah, those yokels in KY don't have tv's and never heard of him. It's insulting. And Mr Obama---they just thought Hillary was a BETTER candidate.  His arrogance is mind-boggling.

    He complains about the email with his name on it (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by athyrio on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:23:10 PM EST
    that went out all over the place saying untrue stuff about him and the next breath complains about name recognition that folks never heard of him lol....talk about a contradiction!!!

    Parent
    Yep. You've heard all the rumors about me. (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by rooge04 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:29:50 PM EST
    Except when you don't vote for me. When you don't vote for me, you just don't know me well enough. It makes no sense. And it's insulting on top of it.

    Parent
    If they don't vote for him (none / 0) (#95)
    by madamab on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:40:55 PM EST
    either they don't know him, or they're just not worthy of him.

    Yes, apparently some voters are not good enough for Barack Obama.

    /Inigo Montoya voice

    "You keep saying that word, Unity. I do not think it means what you think it means."

    /Inigo Montoya voice

    Parent

    After looking (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:21:23 PM EST
    at all these polls, I've decided that it's certain that if we want to win we have to nominate Hillary. Every poll continues to tell us that Obama is unelectable.

    I dunno about that (5.00 / 3) (#61)
    by txpolitico67 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:25:18 PM EST
    I know some pretty bitter Floridians who will be clinging to their votes this November.  Highly doubt they will be releasing them to Senator Obama.

    I've reconsidered. (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by lyzurgyk on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:28:41 PM EST
    Everywhere I read that even the most favorable portioning of FL/MI for Hillary won't keep Obama from getting the nomination.   So why won't Obama agree to that?

    After NC/IN, I was ready for Hillary to drop out but I've reconsidered.   Let's go to the convention!   I'll vote for whoever the nominee is but I don't see much reason to kowtow to Obama and particularly to his graceless supporters.   Why not put a thumb in their eye?      

    or a foot up (none / 0) (#88)
    by txpolitico67 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:35:40 PM EST
    their.....

    Parent
    Awesome! (none / 0) (#120)
    by BethanyAnne on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:09:30 PM EST
    Let's damage him as much as possible!  "Just try and win after we are done with you, you graceless nobody!"

    Seriously, when did half the Democratic party turn into thugs?  When your candidate lost?

    Parent

    No sweetie. It happened when your candidate (none / 0) (#122)
    by rooge04 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:10:45 PM EST
    realized that he could win without us. Now that he realizes that Oops, he totally can't...he's trying to pretend we're the ones being thugs. Sending out his online armies to tell us the same thing. My vote is my right. And I can lord it over whomever I want.

    Parent
    Horrible argument. (none / 0) (#135)
    by lyzurgyk on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:38:33 PM EST

    If you think Obama is that vulnerable, then you ought to vote for Hillary.

    When did half the Democratic Party turn into thin-skinned whiny children?

    Parent

    are you talking about the campaign (none / 0) (#156)
    by hellothere on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:54:24 AM EST
    or supporters. actually that term whiny child might apply to several that come to mind.

    Parent
    The Thugs Are Obama Supporters (none / 0) (#158)
    by MO Blue on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:03:35 AM EST
    Tavis Smiley received death threats and his family was harassed and he had to quit his job because he dared to criticize Obama for refusing to attend an AA event. Those actions by Obama supporters were by definition thuggish.

    Verbally criticizing Obama does not qualify by definition as thuggish behavior. Of course, assigning derogatory labels to people who do not support Obama is SOP for SOME Obama supporters.

    Obama has a very good chance of losing the election because of all the derogatory labels (racists, uneducated, typical white women etc.) he, his surrogates and supporters have used against voters. So Bethany keep up the good work. I'm sure with your talent you can lose quite a few more votes for Obama.  

    Parent

    The DNC is determined to have another encore (5.00 / 3) (#92)
    by athyrio on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:38:35 PM EST
    performance of "Why Americans won't elect an elitist" .......Back by popular demand LOL.....


    Obama is (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by txpolitico67 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:38:40 PM EST
    all the rage in Idaho doncha know?

    Maybe you should stretch it and not want (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by Florida Resident on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:26:03 PM EST
    your vote counted in the GE.

    It just never ends (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by facta non verba on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:21:33 PM EST
    You go watch American Idol and another poll comes out. It's the map. It's the map.

    Rollins on CNN (4.66 / 3) (#31)
    by Robert Oak on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:05:02 PM EST
    He was on Lou Dobbs today and said the Democratic party is getting together and put up a candidate who cannot win with the swing voters and they are bound and determined to lose yet another election.

    Then, once again, it was obvious the Obama campaign is doing two things.  1  do not count the votes as is, in FL/MI and 2.  blame their loss on Hillary.

    So glad they have that great vision to change America!

    I feel like I'm in flashback to 1968 and have been the minute I heard they were doing that to MI/FL.

    But I agree with MI in that they are ground zero for bad economic and trade policies as well as financial sector so I don't blame them at all for moving it up in order to get those economic issues front and center.  I didn't blame them at all for moving their primary up and frankly I think the states should have more power than some DNC.  Always have.

    i don't know maybe we need these (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by hellothere on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:08:33 PM EST
    so called party elders to get a whooping in order to bring some sense back.

    Parent
    Well, I'll blame Clinton too (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by Robert Oak on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:20:28 PM EST
    She needed to dump off those lobbyists, especially Mark Penn and then they need to distance from Rubins (Citigroup) which is about as difficult as shaking off Bill Gates because of the money and power frankly.  I mean very very tough to get rid of him.

    What has happened is she morphed.  She has turned into a fire breathing populist.  That is precisely how Jim Webb, Jon Tester, Claire McCaskill, Bernie Sanders and our fantastic gang of new Democrats in the Senate, that's really how they won, fantastic overall positions.  

    It's like she's joined them in policy positions, rhetoric and when I started reading the policy positions and checked out a few votes, in all honesty, I think her real heart lies in the realm of fire breathing populist.

    So, now we have also a new problem.  Much of the Democratic leadership is corrupt frankly.  They magically only push legislation that is written by corporate lobbyists, yet when it comes to doing the right thing and really shutting down the Senate to get the right thing passed, they haven't been so swift on it all.  And this isn't even so partisan as one would believe, it's really more the real representatives vs. the corporate representatives on many bills.  Not all obviously, but on trade, many economic positions there is a lot of overlap.

    So, I wonder now that she is this extraordinary candidate, obviously very in touch with what the US really needs...I wonder if they will try to stop her just on that alone.  

    Parent

    You know that Rubin is an Obama backer right? (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by rooge04 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:25:15 PM EST
    No I didn't! (none / 0) (#131)
    by Robert Oak on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:28:15 PM EST
    Do you have a link or anything to this?  This is news and very good news to me.

    Parent
    bad news Rubins endorsed Clinton (none / 0) (#162)
    by Robert Oak on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:32:51 PM EST
    http://subprimer.org/content/how-win-bob-rubins-endorsement-timeline

    that said, he's part of the Horizon project which has some exceptional policy recommendations that I've analyzed and because they are so good I'm surprised he's involved at all.

    Parent

    And how are the old men (5.00 / 4) (#62)
    by pie on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:26:12 PM EST
    in Congress who are supporting Obama any more populist than she is?

    That's the problem with all of this.  I do think she might have her own agenda if she's elected.   Obama will be business. as. usual.

    Could be wrong about the former, but not the latter.

    I'll take my chances with her.


    Parent

    Hillary's new identity (5.00 / 4) (#66)
    by stillife on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:27:19 PM EST
    I see the same thing.  She's really come into her own.  I've heard some pundits say it's b/c she has nothing to lose at this point, but I spit on pundits.  Whatever the reason, Hillary has turned into an awesome candidate.  And I do believe that TPTB will stop her for that reason.  She'd shake things up too much, whereas Mr. Hopey/Changey is all about compromise.  

    I've felt for awhile (especially since 2006 - what a disappointment when Pelosi took impeachment off the table) that the fix was in.  Hillary is scary to these people b/c she might actually accomplish something.  Barack, not so much.  He just wants to give speeches and (to quote my daughter) marinate in the applause.

    Parent

    Marinate in the applause! I love that. (5.00 / 4) (#71)
    by rooge04 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:28:59 PM EST
    Also, she's right.  He's THEIR Bushie. He's their puppet.  He will not fight them.  Can you imagine Hillary as President? She'd have Pelosi and Reid actually you know DOING stuff. For the PEOPLE.

    Parent
    OMG, the horror! (5.00 / 3) (#78)
    by stillife on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:30:46 PM EST
    Imagine elected officials actually having to do their jobs and be responsive to their constituents.  Must be stopped at all costs!  

    Parent
    I will never forget the Daily Show showing (5.00 / 3) (#84)
    by rooge04 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:33:18 PM EST
    Pelosi and Reid explaining the "tough" new rules on Iraq timelines when they first took over. What an embarrassment.  Yeah, Hillary would actually make them do their jobs, because God knows neither one of the Clintons have ever been anything but nose-to-the-grindstone workaholics.

    Parent
    At least Dems protected Roe 1st day 2007 ... (none / 0) (#133)
    by Ellie on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:30:04 PM EST
    ... justifying the rights and franchise fearmongering they do to women voters about SCOTUS every election.

    Ah yes, it was so cool finally seeing it at the top of our fine Dems' Congressional to-do list during the 100-day push to get important stuff done.

    Made me feel almost human. I hear the full VIP package f*cking rocks.

    Parent

    I agree completely. (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by masslib on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:29:48 PM EST
    funny i was driving back from the store (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by hellothere on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:00:11 PM EST
    just now thinking ugly thoughts about penn.

    Parent
    I imagine the DC elite are trying to (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by RalphB on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:29:14 PM EST
    stop her for that reason now.  Probably have been almost from the start.  Let's face it, the last thing the inside the beltway crowd really wants is change.


    Parent
    Man (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:11:16 PM EST
    that's depressing but very true. It's already obvious to the GOP that Obama can't win but the Dems are blind to this fact.

    Parent
    Yep (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by stillife on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:19:37 PM EST
    I'm very much reminded of 1968.  I was way too young to vote, but I followed the primaries closely.  My parents were McCarthy supporters.  

    The difference, I would say, is that Obama's "movement" is based on personality, not issues.  However, the rift in the Democratic Party is certainly comparable to '68.  And look how that turned out.

    Oh, Dems!  Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, yet again!  I have to say, I think Repubs are a lot smarter than we are, at least in the cunning, animal survivor sense.

    Parent

    Clinton and Obama signed the Pledge. (3.00 / 2) (#99)
    by kid oakland on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:43:12 PM EST
    Clinton and Obama agreed to the 2025 (now 2026) standard and ran their campaigns accordingly.

    Clinton and Obama agreed that the unsanctioned primaries in MI and FL would not count; they agreed that they would not yield pledged or Super Delegates barring a DNC sanctioned revote or a settlement amicable to both sides arranged through the DNC.

    Obama, simply by attaining the 15% threshold in the remaining contests and winning his share of the additional At-Large delegates yet to be assigned to him will soon arrive at a Pledged delegate total that will make a Pledged Delegate majority possible even with seating MI and FL on terms favorable to Clinton.

    That is a position of negotiating strength. And these are negotiations. That is a significant reality.

    How can Clinton claim to hold the moral high ground in those negotiations when:

    a) She is going back on her own agreements?

    b) She has decisively lost the Pledged Delegate Totals, and, for that matter, the Popular Vote in the states where all the candidates campaigned?

    c) Finally, where is the talk of the preogative of the Super Delegates to make up their minds for the good of the party now that Senator Obama has decisively passed Senator Clinton in the Super Delegate total as well?

    What is Senator Clinton's Super Delegate argument now?

    Polls? (You've got to be kidding.)

    Or...and this is very serious...that the popular vote in two unsanctioned primaries where no one campaigned and which she agreed would not count should overturn the clear and certain results in Pledged Delegates and the Popular Vote from the states that followed the rules and where all the candidates competed on an equal footing?

    That's her argument?

    It is no surprise that Super Delegates are not persuaded.

    Senator Obama has always pledged that MI and FL would be seated. He is committed to the voters of MI and FL and to the voters everywhere else. He has not grandstanded on the issue. In fact, he has conducted himself in this dispute in EXACTLY the way that we hope a candidate would conduct his or her self in a General if this type of situation were to arise.

    Obama has competed in an excellent and forthright manner on behalf of all his voters and his supporters.

    That is what we expect a candidate to do.

    Obama is winning. There is no disputing that.

    Oh, bless your heart, sweetie, (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by madamab on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:44:53 PM EST
    your entire screed is totally and completely delusional.

    Have a lovely evening.

    Parent

    That's your argument? (5.00 / 3) (#105)
    by waldenpond on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:46:32 PM EST
    No thanks.  Still not voting for him.

    Parent
    I guess no one told you that the (5.00 / 4) (#109)
    by Anne on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:52:34 PM EST
    auditions for Last Comic Standing have closed.

    Better luck next year, kid.

    And you might want to work on your material.

    Parent

    Dude, they're gonna miss you on (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by rooge04 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:53:15 PM EST
    Big Orange.  BTW, the RULZ won't matter when November comes and Obama loses FL by 15 points.  That should be your concern.  However, keep screaming 2025 til you're blue in the face.  See if that helps ya.  Oh and also?  Obama broke the rules by running ads. Hillary did no such thing.    Write this screed on Daily Kos. I'm sure you'll get 800 comments agreeing with you.

    Parent
    My goodness (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by Steve M on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:00:13 PM EST
    What a work of fiction.

    I'm not going to bother documenting your demonstrably false statements any more, because you just ignore the evidence and run away when I do.

    If you think some purpose is served by continuing to post debunked talking points, I can't stop you.

    Parent

    Ha! (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:21:52 PM EST
    you repeat your lies again and again while defending the disenfranchisment of voters.

    Amore shameless mendacious hypocrite would be difficult to find that you.

    Oh noooo! more ad Homs.

    go away you fool. No one needs your nonsense here.

    Parent

    Who is paying you? McCain, Obama.. (none / 0) (#142)
    by MarkL on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:06:21 PM EST
    both?

    Parent
    I don't know (none / 0) (#150)
    by Evie on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:45:31 PM EST
    I think the argument about honoring the will of the people of the entire country is pretty strong.

    At the end of the day, the election process is about the voters. It's not about the candidates or the campaigns. Election laws and rules are not about coddling the candidates, but about protecting the voters' rights.

    When you start compromising on democratic principles and disenfranchising innocent people, it becomes a very slippery slope away from fundamental American principles.

    Parent

    The voters (none / 0) (#160)
    by kid oakland on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:32:45 AM EST
    in the states that followed the rules and where everyone campaigned and everyone's name was on the ballot chose Obama.

    Those voters have the right to a fair election under the law and a fair accounting of the process.

    Obama and Clinton did not campaign in FL or MI.

    Jeralyn argued yesterday that MI should give Obama zero delegates and zero votes.

    Senator Clinton compared the situation in FL to civil rights struggles and asserted she had won the "national popular vote" to an audience of Floridians.

    There's a contradiction there. People should see that those are negotiation positions couched in civil rights arguments...and they fail to live up to the principles they claim to invoke.

    Zero votes or delegates in MI?
    Claiming to have won the "national popular vote" as if there's a clear measure for that?

    Using the vote totals in two states where Obama did not campaign, and one in which his name was not on the ballot, to overturn the results from everywhere else is not respecting the rights of the voters, it's not making a civil rights argument, it's anything but.

    The settlement of MI and FL will reflect both that those states' legislatures broke the rules and that no one campaigned in either state. It will also strive to respect the fact that the voters of MI and FL didn't have much choice in the matter and deserve to have a delegation representing them in Denver.

    The super delegates are aware of all of this.

    TalkLeft is arguing that Obama should receive zero votes or delegates from MI. That's not a civil rights argument or respecting the rights of the voters.

    Parent

    A fair election for voters (none / 0) (#161)
    by Evie on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:42:27 PM EST
    does not require that all candidates do a minimum amount of campaigning. The candidates themselves are responsible for putting their name on the ballot and giving the voters a chance to vote for them.

    Obama wilfully deprived Michigan voters of the chance to vote for him. He was not required to do so. He willingly forfeited the contest and forfeited the votes that would have been cast for him.

    The contest still included several candidates, and MI voters voted for all of them. Now the Obama campaign is arguing that because of HIS unilateral actions, that ALL of those voters should not be counted. Elections are about counting the votes that are actually cast, not making sure that Obama gets every vote that MIGHT have been cast for him.

    Now the superdelegates are still free to estimate and consider how many votes he might have gotten in MI based on polling, surveys, etc. and take that into account. They may consider all the uncommitted votes to be in his column, if they want.

    But assigning actual votes that had not been cast is vote manipulation. If Obama had only agreed to a revote, this wouldn't be an issue and he wouldn't be stuck arguing against counting votes.

    Parent

    It is your side (1.00 / 1) (#163)
    by kid oakland on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:41:38 PM EST
    that is stuck arguing that the results of the elections that were run according to the rules should be overturned by the unsanctioned "beauty-contest" primaries in MI and FL where no one campaigned.

    Obama has always been for a solution negotiated through the DNC that would seat MI and FL. He has not, as Senator Clinton has, grandstanded and played politics with this issue.

    Talk Left is arguing that MI should yield zero votes and delegates for Barack Obama.

    The DNC will not allow that. Nor will they allow that outcome for FL. The DNC runs our nomination process.

    There will be a negotiated DNC settlement that will seat the delegations from MI and FL balancing the fact that they held unsanctioned primaries where no one campaigned with the goal of seating delegations from both states.

    Clinton has already rejected one solution from MI out of hand approved by the DNC, MI politicians and the Obama campaign.

    To make the claim that MI should yield zero votes and delegates for Senator Obama (in a naked attempt to overcome Obama's victories in the states where all sides campaigned) and, at the same time, pretend to be making a principled stand for civil rights and voting rights defies logic.

    Why won't Clinton accept the MI plan?

    Why does TalkLeft insist that Obama receive zero delegates or votes from MI?

    The answer is clear; it's not about principles, it's about politics and always has been.


    Parent

    "Solutions negotiated with the DNC" (none / 0) (#165)
    by Evie on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:13:14 PM EST
    is not counting votes.

    If Obama wants to block revotes and argue for elevating DNC rules over the will of the voters, he can do so.

    But that's politics being played at the expense of the actual votes cast by American voters who have done nothing wrong.

    Parent

    You are misstating TL's position (none / 0) (#166)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:46:08 PM EST
    or at least mine.

    I have said Obama should have the uncommitted delegates and vote.

    Parent

    latest poll in VA isn't favorable to him (none / 0) (#16)
    by athyrio on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:59:39 PM EST
    at all...Cant remember which one but saw it yesterday.....

    Probably This One (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by The Maven on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:07:27 PM EST
    that just came out from VCU, which showed McCain with an 8-point lead over Obama, versus a 9-point edge over Clinton.  I hadn't seen this poll until just now, but it would seem to nullify one of the electability points I gave in Obama's favor in a comment slightly above.

    Parent
    Virginia (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by txpolitico67 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:42:28 PM EST
    big naval base there. lotsa military.  Reason why Webb did well was because of his military creds and the Macaca moment.

    Mind you...the man BARELY won.  No matter HOW hard the media tries to flip VA to Obama, it ain't gonna happen.  Not enough going on in northern VA to make it blue.

    I am a student of electoral college history.  Last time a Dem took VA was LBJ back in 1964.

    Not. One. Since.

    Parent

    today i got up and the yahoo news said (none / 0) (#21)
    by hellothere on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:01:41 PM EST
    obama was ahead by 12 points against mccain. zogby? geez! you can't anything these days.

    Maybe their only polling Democrats (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by dianem on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:03:00 PM EST
    I'm betting that Obama has McCain by at least 12 points among Democrats and Independents. Well, Democrats anyway.

    Parent
    i think zogby is sooo skewed!(snark) (none / 0) (#28)
    by hellothere on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:04:49 PM EST
    It may not make sense for Obama anymore (none / 0) (#40)
    by makana44 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:09:40 PM EST
    It may at one time have made sense for Obama to support seating the Florida delegation, but that time may now have passed. Hillary is breathing down his neck and she's not looking like she's quitting. Au contraire. After Puerto Rico she likely will have the indisputable popular vote lead (even without Michigan). That puts two non-definitive metrics fully in play...the pledged delegates and the popular vote. And it's an even split.

    Even if Obama plays nice now with Florida, his campaign may believe they've lost Florida in the GE already. Nobody is really going to be fooled by a sudden change of heart. So the only effect seating Florida has is to make Hillary's case stronger...she'll claim the popular vote anyway, but then she would also eat into his pledged delegate lead. They're not playing for advantage in the GE, they're still just trying to secure the nomination.

    The time to be looking ahead and playing it smart may have already passed for Obama. Appearances and proclamations aside, they know they can still lose this thing.


    and with PR's Electoral Votes (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by dem08 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:44:26 PM EST
    locked up, added to MI, FLA,  Ohio, WV, PA, possibly even KT & TX, Hillary could get an LBJ type sweep with much down-ticket draft, maybe 65 DEM Senators.

    The SD have to see this and endorse her, probably when she takes PR by 65 to 30.

    It will cause some uproar with Obama's voters, but the Clinton's will get the Black vote back and the so-called "elite" or "Creative Class" will have no place to go but Hillary.

    Hillary might well engage in a Credentials Fight at the Convention unless Obama has 2275 Delegates in hand.

    This is her chance, and the GOP spokespeople like Rove and Kristol have painted themselves into a corner by praising her so often: they can hardly attack her in the GE because she can quote their support.

    Parent

    oh i don't know about attacking her in the ge. (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by hellothere on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:02:08 PM EST
    these repubs can turn on a dime. they would find or manufacture an issue.

    Parent
    Florida (none / 0) (#57)
    by Teo1234 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:22:53 PM EST
    The thing with Florida is this:

    The state knew that it wanted to challenge both parties' rules. It demanded the respect of an Iowa or New Hampshire. Great. But, in doing so, it took a risk. It took a risk that the parties would actually hold Florida accountable for breaking their rules by not counting the votes.  

    Hillary even said as much in October in New Hampshire. There is always a choice and a consequence. Florida should not have had a primary if it wanted to hold it in advance of the Feb. 5 deadline. It should have said, "we disapprove of the process." Instead, it held a primary in which the votes won't count.

    BTW: If Florida had counted, does anyone really think Obama would have had any chance to win FLorida? Further, does anyone think that Hillary would have even gone to Iowa? No on both counts.

    you are uninformed (none / 0) (#124)
    by bigbay on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:16:51 PM EST
    The Republican Legislature moved the date up

    Parent
    I was just at americablog (first time in weeks) (none / 0) (#113)
    by kenosharick on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:59:36 PM EST
    and they are HYSTERICAL!!!! They are screaming for her to get out and attacking the media for even covering her. If their candidate is such a sure thing why are they so afraid to let everyone including Fla/Mich vote? These state polls showing Obama losing huge in Nov. must be scaring the crap out of them. Such a difference; the hosts here are rational and civil- while over there its "the sky is falling, the sky is falling" type panic and hyperbole.

    hmmm, sounds like it's hard work being (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by hellothere on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:04:32 PM EST
    one of the kool kids!

    Parent
    I've yet to see any argument (none / 0) (#123)
    by digdugboy on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:16:17 PM EST
    that Obama can win Florida in the GE under any circumstances. Unless BTD can provide some kind of argument that Florida really will be in play if Obama works to seat the delegates, his post makes no sense whatsoever.

    Hold up (none / 0) (#125)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:19:54 PM EST
    Your argument is that Obama has no chance in Florida therefore he should be for disenfranchising the voters of Florida? Oookaaaay.

    Parent
    Your premises are stupid (none / 0) (#134)
    by digdugboy on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:31:33 PM EST
    Obama is not disenfranchising anybody. Either the DNC did that in the summer of 2007 or Florida voters, through their elected officials, did that to themselves.

    But you avoid the point, anyway. Prove your argument that Obama could turn Florida around for him over McCain by urging that the Florida delegation be seated. Show your work.

    Parent

    I do (none / 0) (#126)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:20:13 PM EST


    Dead Duck in the Water IMO (none / 0) (#127)
    by delacarpa on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:20:29 PM EST
    I think it is beyond whether he fights or not to seat them. Too little too late. Just the fact that Obama's Campaign has said they would go a little bit further than half way. Obama is scared that if he opens the door just a little bit, Clinton will plow through. So Clinton has the UPPER IMO on this.

    Polls meaningless at this point (none / 0) (#137)
    by Seth90212 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:39:44 PM EST
    She's down by over 20 against Obama in some polls. So what?

    Because votes should always count. (none / 0) (#138)
    by Florida Resident on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:45:26 PM EST
    That is what the Democrats are supposed to be about.  I don't know if you really are from Florida but you are the only one that I have seen telling us that you don't want your vote to count.   BTW in Jan. 29 I had not yet changed parties so I was still a registered Republican I did not vote in the Primary.  But why wife who was registered as a Democrat did and she wants her vote to count.  So do I and so do most Democrats in my area.

    While Obama merely keeps funding it. (none / 0) (#145)
    by Rhouse on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:18:20 PM EST
    And don't give me that line about supporting the troops.  Congress stopped funding the war in Vietnam and Nixon had to declare victory and get the h+ll out.

    I am in Central Florida (none / 0) (#147)
    by diplomatic on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:31:25 PM EST


    Please (none / 0) (#159)
    by LefterNutter on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:25:43 AM EST
    Obama needs to just give it up. I mean seriously, does nayone actually think he will make it for 30 full days if he is elected? I think the VP choice has never been more important because its pretty obvious that the VP will end up in charge. I mean think about it.

    JT
    http://www.anondo.alturl.com

    Yes (none / 0) (#164)
    by kid oakland on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:44:11 PM EST
    Virginia. SUSA. Today.