Once Upon A Time . . .

an important blogger and Newsweek columnist wrote this:

Clinton was the only top-tier candidate to refuse the ultimate Iowa and New Hampshire pander by removing her name from the Michigan ballot. That makes her essentially the de facto winner since Edwards and Obama, caving to the cry babies in Iowa and New Hampshire, took their name off Michigan's ballot. Sure, the DNC has stripped Michigan of its delegates, but that won't last through the convention. The last thing Democrats can afford is to alienate swing states like Michigan and Florida by refusing to seat their delegates.

So while Obama and Edwards kneecap their chances of winning, Clinton is single-mindedly focused on the goal.

(Emphasis supplied.) Now that the preferred candidate of that important blogger and Newsweek columnist is the almost certain nominee, I hope that important blogger and Newsweek columnist joins me in urging the DNC to do the right thing and the smart thing on May 31, seat the Florida and Michigan delegations. Let's all work to avoid "kneecapping" the Democratic nominee's chances in November.

Speaking for me only.

< Shocked ! Shocked! To Find There Is Politics Going On | More On Why Obama Needs To Fight To Seat Florida >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Intellectual consistency. . . (5.00 / 19) (#1)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:42:12 AM EST
    is so last decade.

    I'm a traditonalist (5.00 / 10) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:44:06 AM EST
    Never trust a blogger. . . (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:46:32 AM EST
    over 30.

    Never trust a blogger... (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by madamab on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:53:49 AM EST
    over the emotional age of 12.

    They might use logical thinking to destroy your arguments!


    Never trust a blogger (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by oldpro on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:02:03 AM EST

    That's what the search tool is for.

    As this column so aptly demonstrates....


    Dean already said (5.00 / 4) (#78)
    by talex on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:44:19 AM EST
    that the delegations, in some form, would be seated. The only question now is in what form?

    As for the Kos joining in on calling for the seating of the delegations he would actually be joining 'millions' of people who are calling for the seating of those delegations.

    But screw Kos. Who needs him? He has no influence over 'thinking' voters. Besides Kos is not a progressive. On the Charlie Rose show he described himself as a Libertarian. So Kos is just an opportunist feeding off the hunger for progressive forums. He has a right to make a living any way he wants but he never was and never will be a progressive.


    I had forgotten about that (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by cal1942 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:22:17 PM EST
    Your comment just uncapped a recollection.  

    Probably 10-12 months ago he wrote a post more or less casually calling himself a Libertarian.  I remember thinking at the time. 'what! this  guy doesn't know what a Libertarian is'

    Given everything since; I was wrong.  He does know what it means to be a Libertarian; a right Republican that wants to do drugs.

    He ultimately fell in love with Obama the neo-lib.  Figures.


    There really has been (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by TomP on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:14:48 AM EST
    a lack of intellectually honesty, hasn't there.  

    But no one cares.  It's not logic or evidence; it's emotion that drives decsions by so many.


    Shut up, shut up! He never said that!!!!!!!!! (5.00 / 10) (#2)
    by andgarden on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:42:16 AM EST
    Everyone knows that the Florida and Michigan "elections" were ILLEGAL. Keith Olbermann said so!

    And I can prove it..... (5.00 / 3) (#59)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:19:01 AM EST
    ...that post is a fraud because nobody used the expression "kneecap" in January 08. Hillary Clinton didn't invent it until February, after Super Tuesday. So there.

    We are the change we have been waiting for! (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by DCDemocrat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:44:32 AM EST
    The RULZ.  The RULZ.  

    We are the change we've been waiting for... (5.00 / 6) (#11)
    by outsider on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:51:02 AM EST
    Then you should have told yourselves to hurry up...



    I was at a frat party (none / 0) (#22)
    by DCDemocrat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:56:45 AM EST
    all night, and I tripped on my girlie magazines when I got into the dorm.  I fell and hit my head.  I would have been here earlier otherwise.

    Of all (none / 0) (#102)
    by cal1942 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:25:53 PM EST
    the sh!t lines in all the campaigns he has to come in here and use that sh!t line.

    Bwahahahahaha! (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by madamab on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:45:48 AM EST
    Pretzel, thy name is Markos!

    (Ooooh, Photoshop idea - Obama bloggers' faces superimposed on a pretzel!)

    Holy crap! (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by pie on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:08:09 AM EST
    Kos wrote that?!!!

    Oh my.


    I tell you, if we manage to lose Michigan (5.00 / 8) (#7)
    by tigercourse on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:47:08 AM EST
    this November, I plan to riot in the streets all by myself. It will look pretty funny but I don't think I'll be able to stop myself. Does Jeralyn ever take cases on the East coast?

    Check Hominid Views. (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by madamab on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:52:42 AM EST
    McCain has an excellent chance of taking it away from Obama.

    McCain's chances against Clinton are, shall we say, a little slimmer. ;-)


    Part of my concern is (none / 0) (#47)
    by Christy1947 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:10:28 AM EST
    whether the Repubs are holding their fire on Clinton to see if she gets the nod, and will then be prepared to unload stuff that we haven't heard so far this year. The worry has always been which candidate would be harder for Repubs to swift-boat. And the chatter early in the year turned on whether they could manipulate the D race to get the one easier for them to run against. Rush was up to that. So I have anxiety about whether the current appearance of things as in the prior comment is a false front. If they can hijack a state D primary as in Fla, to make a mess of it, they can also do that, and are already chuckling about it.

    Oh I agree with you (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by Dr Molly on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:13:28 AM EST
    There's no doubt that they would unload on either Obama or Clinton. Obama is going to be the nominee I suppose, but if it had been Clinton, they would try equally to rip her to shreds. I've always been cautious about these electability arguments for either one.

    They will try (5.00 / 3) (#65)
    by Democratic Cat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:24:31 AM EST
    but I have much more faith in Clinton's ability to withstand it. Seriously, think about what she has been put through for the last fifteen years, and she's still standing tall.

    And consider (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by MonaL on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:41:03 PM EST
    all the whining Obama does whenever he's been challenged in any way by his opponents or the media.  My gawd, just imagine what the run-up to Nov. will sound like...

    Fox News: Obama is a flip-flopper and an elitist
    O:  Fox New is a racist media outlet, and they're picking on me. Bwaahhh!


    In order for there to be shame (5.00 / 6) (#8)
    by Radix on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:48:40 AM EST
    there has to be some integrity, no?

    Because there are no facts, there is no truth, Just data to be manipulated

    Don Henley-The Garden of Allah

    On to Denver (5.00 / 5) (#9)
    by Athena on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:49:06 AM EST
    "That won't last through the convention."

    OK, Markos.  Meet you in Denver.

    no wonder (5.00 / 5) (#10)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:50:27 AM EST
    they wont let you in the club

    Iwould not woant to be a member (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:55:44 AM EST
    of a club that would have me.

    Yeah, Groucho.


    I remember this. (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:51:26 AM EST
    And so when Hillary gets nominated is he going to remember that she played to win from the beginning? Naw, it'll be temper tantrum time and screams of "blood on the street." Really, though, if the democratic party is such a wimpy party that the can't stand up to threats and put up the best candidate we deserve to lose.

    Threats? (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Athena on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:55:59 AM EST
    I am really tired of the implicit threats that are too "scary" to make it impossible for rational people to select an elected nominee.

    And this party is supposed to then run the country against all manner of foreign enemies?  LOL.


    Hillary's Voters (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Athena on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:53:50 AM EST
    Why shouldn't Hillary say: " I intend to fight for the voters in Michigan and Florida who put their faith in me.  That's what they expect."

    She's simply representing the will of those people.  That's not shameful or evil.  It's how this country runs.

    she said that BEFORE FL & MI voted (none / 0) (#103)
    by Josey on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:39:13 PM EST
    while Obama did the opposite - discouraging his supporters from exercising their right to vote because "the delegates from those states will not be seated at the Convention."

    He also wrote this post:

    Iowa: What a crappy way to pick a winner

    Momentum against the Iowa first-in-the-nation caucus is sure to explode after Thursday, as many people get their first real close-up look at its undemocratic nature.

    First, a look at how the caucuses work:

    As in years past, voters must present themselves in person, at a specified hour, and stay for as long as two. And if these caucuses are anything like prior ones, only a tiny percentage of Iowans will participate. In 2000, the last year in which both parties held caucuses, 59,000 Democrats and 87,000 Republicans voted, in a state with 2.9 million people. In 2004, when the Republicans did not caucus, 124,000 people turned out for the Democratic caucuses [...]

    While the Republican caucuses are fairly simple -- voters can leave shortly after they declare their preferences -- Democratic caucuses can require more time and multiple candidate preferences from participants. They do not conform to the one-person, one-vote rule, because votes are weighted according to a precinct's past level of participation. Ties can be settled by coin toss or picking names out of a hat.

    So what does this mean, in practical terms?

    Jason Huffman has lived in Iowa his whole life. Lately he has been watching presidential debates on the Internet, discussing what he sees with friends and relatives. But when fellow Iowans choose among presidential candidates on Thursday night, he will not be able to vote, because he is serving with the National Guard in western Afghanistan.

    "Shouldn't we at least have as much influence in this as any other citizen?" Captain Huffman wrote in an e-mail interview.

    Nope, Cpt. Huffman is out of luck. As are these folks:

    "It disenfranchises certain voters or makes them make choices between putting food on the table and caucusing," said Tom Lindsey, a high school teacher in Iowa City. Mr. Lindsey plans to attend this year, but his neighbors include a cook who cannot slip away from his restaurant job on Thursday night and a mother who must care for her autistic child [...]

    But many Iowans have been dutifully watching presidential candidates all summer and fall only to find themselves unable to participate on caucus night. Take Sally Kreamer, a single mother in Johnston, outside Des Moines, who says she cannot escape the pull of her children's dinner and homework. "I would love to participate," Ms. Kreamer said.

    Or Carrie Tope, who works at a hospital emergency room in Ames and cannot find anyone to take her shift. She particularly wants to vote this year, she said, because things are so close.

    Even some campaign volunteers "have bosses who say, `We really need you at work that night,'" said Jennifer O'Malley Dillon, state director for John Edwards. "Unfortunately, they just aren't going to be able to participate," she said.

    And the Iowa Democratic Party response to what is a hideous way to conduct an election?

    Scott Brennan, chairman of the Iowa Democratic Party, said the party had no responsibility to ensure that voters can caucus. "The campaigns are in charge of generating the turnout," Mr. Brennan said, and the voters who truly care will find their way to their local caucuses.

    As for Ms. Tope, the emergency room worker, "there's always the next cycle," Mr. Brennan said.

    What an elitist a[**]shole. Yet this ridiculous process he defends will disenfranchises thousands of Iowans as it disenfranchises millions of voters around the country who would like a chance to vote for their favorite primary candidate but will never get the chance.

    There's an entire nation out there -- 48 states plus D.C. -- who have tired of this ridiculous calendar and undemocratic way of choosing our nominee. Iowa and New Hampshire will fight like hell to retain their lofty status -- it's worth prestige points and a crapload of money for those states. But no matter what those states may think, they don't have a god-given right to hold our nomination process hostage to their whims (and parochial concerns like ethanol). They should enjoy these next two weeks, because this is likely their swan song.

    One thing you have to say about this important blogger, when he is good, he is very very good.

    NOTE- There are no copyright implications in my reprinting his post as his policy is "steal what you want."

    Caught (5.00 / 9) (#23)
    by Athena on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:57:00 AM EST
    BTD, that's not fair.  You're using his own words against him.

    I will also use (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:58:27 AM EST
    James Baker and John Bolton's words against them.

    10 Days of Hell for the Obama blogs on counting the votes in Michigan and Florida.


    Either Bowers or Stoller (none / 0) (#86)
    by Boston Boomer on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:24:14 AM EST
    at Open Left wrote the same types of things about FL and MI at about the same time as Kos.  I can't recall which it was--maybe both.

    and when he is bad (5.00 / 4) (#26)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:58:46 AM EST
    he is horrid

    BTD is entirely dedicated to his task. (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by oculus on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:58:57 AM EST
    Sleep?  Who needs sleep?

    10 Days That Shook The Blogging World (5.00 / 8) (#29)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:00:40 AM EST
    are upon us.

    We are building to a May 31 crescendo.


    It's been a while (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by andgarden on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:01:12 AM EST
    so you owe us one of these. ;-)

    And at intermission of BTD's Big Ten Days (5.00 / 4) (#82)
    by Cream City on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:11:51 AM EST
    HBO is kindly providing the movie "Recount" to remind us of those halcyon days when Dems stood for counting the votes in Florida.

    That was, like, so last decade, too -- indeed, it was so last millennium, y'know?

    (And let us all remember who was Gore's campaign manager and advised him to give up: Prima Donna Brazile, the same one behind the rool change to strip Florida and Michigan of all of their delegates.  What the heck is her agenda, anyway?)


    excellent (none / 0) (#33)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:02:32 AM EST
    Obama (5.00 / 4) (#28)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:59:30 AM EST
    certainly has shown the same ability as Bush to get people to throw their principles aside hasn't he?

    Heh (none / 0) (#90)
    by Steve M on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:42:45 AM EST
    People forget that the objective Markos is actually pretty good.

    Round one goes convincingly to (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by chancellor on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:55:19 AM EST
    BTD, IMO.

    I got a million of them (5.00 / 4) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:57:32 AM EST
    Arguing for counting the votes is a pretty easy side of the argument.

    The RULZZZ! just ain't gonna cut it.


    Exactly. (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by pie on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:14:29 AM EST
    Besides, I thought Obama had this wrapped up, so I'm shocked and surprised that he isn't pushing for vote-counting.  It would, as you've said, certainly be a way to start the healing process.  Michigan and Florida are two states he can't afford to anger.  

    Instead, it's all this caterwauling about roolz.  Pathetic.

    If we don't count now, people will let him know how much he counts in November.


    Haven't you all heard? He's won nomination (none / 0) (#70)
    by felizarte on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:30:17 AM EST
    Even now as we speak, he is already searching for a VP.

    And the same guy who got us Lieberman (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by Cream City on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:13:44 AM EST
    is running Obama's VP search again.  It just gets worse and worse for the Doomed Dem Party.

    You have got to be kidding (none / 0) (#93)
    by kenoshaMarge on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:18:53 PM EST
    me. Kerry is running the VP search for Obama? OHMIGOD! Think he'll pull a Cheney and find himself?

    Don't know if this has been posted (none / 0) (#41)
    by Serene1 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:07:32 AM EST
    before. But came across this link in the TM message boards. Explains the rulz and all in detail:



    As an interesting aside... (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by outsider on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:56:32 AM EST
    If Markos's early analysis of what happened in MI is correct, and HRC was indeed the de fact winner, then she must also be ahead (de facto?) in the popular vote, since the more recent Markos must be wrong when he says this:

    Insulting People's Intelligence

    Suddenly the MI primary was "Soviet-style".  Sigh.

    We are not treated as if we are intelligent... (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by zfran on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:43:19 AM EST
    more like sheep..follow them, round us up, corral us, feed us (lines) and then keep us fenced.

    Once Upon a Time (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by pontificator on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:03:59 AM EST
    On Aug. 25, when the DNC's rules panel declared Florida's primary date out of order, it agreed by a near-unanimous majority to exceed the 50 percent penalty called for under party rules. Instead, the group stripped Florida of all 210 delegates to underscore its displeasure with Florida's defiance and to discourage other states from following suit. In doing so, the DNC essentially committed itself, for fairness' sake, to strip the similarly defiant Michigan of all 156 of its delegates three months later. Clinton held tremendous potential leverage over this decision, and not only because she was then widely judged the likely nominee. Of the committee's 30 members, a near-majority of 12 were Clinton supporters. All of them--most notably strategist Harold Ickes--voted for Florida's full disenfranchisement. (The only dissenting vote was cast by a Tallahassee, Fla., city commissioner who supported Obama.)


    Where is your mention (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by Mike Pridmore on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:07:14 AM EST
    of Obama supporter Donna Brazile's role in this?  And where is the context of the vote with potential for later changes being discussed?

    Harold Ickes is runnng for President? (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:09:44 AM EST
    But my question is simple, do you think Markos was wrong in January 2008?

    do you not believe that Obama will be the nomineee EVEN IF FL and MI are seated?

    Do you not believe that will help him win in November?

    And finally, do you CARE if he wins in November?> Or are you more interested in trashing Hillary?


    Hmmm (none / 0) (#68)
    by Democratic Cat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:29:12 AM EST
    The sound of the crickets is deafening.

    LOL (none / 0) (#72)
    by pontificator on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:31:23 AM EST
    I put up my comment 22 seconds after yours.  Anyway, I am at work, and need to get stuff done.  I will return to this comment thread this evening.

    Yup, sorry about that (none / 0) (#75)
    by Democratic Cat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:35:18 AM EST
    The time stamps on this site always mess me up.

    Of course MI and FL should be seated (none / 0) (#69)
    by pontificator on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:29:38 AM EST
    No one disputes that.  It's how they're seated -- that's where the rubber meets the road.  My view, give everyone half a delegate (same as the Repubs), and give Obama the delegates that "uncommitted" would have gotten.

    Secondly, pretending that Hillary is not responsible for the actions of her campaign is not persuasive.

    Thirdly, your final comment, an attack on someone's motives, is needlessly divisive and unhelpful.  


    If she is responsible for the actions (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Democratic Cat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:34:18 AM EST
    of her campaign, which I agree with, then Obama is also responsible for the actions of his campaign and of himself. He removed his name from the Michigan ballot. He did it, no one forced him to. So why should he get delegates from Michigan?

    (Note, I don't actually have any problem with him getting some delegates from Michigan, but we believe in the goose and gander principle on this site.)


    Incorrect. I watched the video (none / 0) (#87)
    by Cream City on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:25:24 AM EST
    of the meeting.  Did you, so you could judge for yourself?  It's the wise thing to do these days.

    Watch the video (C-Span archive) and especially watch for Don Fowler.  Then come on back, bless your heart.


    heh. (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by Mike Pridmore on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:04:07 AM EST
    I'm guessing that Markos will try to ignore what you are saying.  There doesn't seem to be much of a way to argue against it.  I think the main quote that he will one day regret is the one where he says Hillary Clinton does not deserve fairness.  But I'm sure these words will also cause him some metaphorical heartburn.

    I also hope he realizes that with prominence comes more responsibility for uniting the party and working to make that happen.

    You know, taking lots into consideration (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by Dr Molly on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:16:51 AM EST
    about what Markos has written and said, I just come away with one main thing - he strikes me as incredibly immature.

    That style works. (5.00 / 3) (#61)
    by TomP on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:21:28 AM EST
    He purposely exagerrates positions to get an effect.  Fans praise; detractors scream, and he gets readers.

    Emotion drives readership and comments.  


    Not always (none / 0) (#105)
    by cawaltz on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:47:21 PM EST
    If the emotion the posts provoke are not good ones, you lose readership. Id imagine that kos has lost as many by choosing sides. He'd better hope the Obama an club stays politically active followng the campaign or he'll end up with a net loss.

    just the demographic... (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by jackyt on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:59:13 PM EST
    that is the backbone of Obama's campaign. Identity politics all the way

    He's AA = AA voters.

    He's college educated with an advanced degree =  
          college educated with advanced degree voters.

    He's young, handsome, articulate, charismatic, cool,
        intellectually unchallenging = immature voters.


    So, really who sucked all his brains out & (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by No Blood for Hubris on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:07:25 AM EST
    replaced them with tapioca pudding, one wonders?

    Or is it rude to ask?

    Call Howard Dean's Office (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by delacarpa on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:16:59 AM EST

    Just got on the internet and saw where Obama is secretly looking for a VP. So I called this number and got Dean's office, don't let them send you to a comment line. Tell them you want Dean's office. The number is 202-863-8000. Please take the time this morning. I am so upset they are saying nothing about this and letting Obama  do this. Make your voice know, this isn't the right or the smart thing to do until he is the nominee. Obama's rushing things by looking for a VP until FLA/MI is seated. Please take a moment!

    Thanks for your consideration

    This part (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by sander60tx on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:17:00 AM EST
    of the post you reference on Daily Kos:

    Obama has made a cottage industry out of attacking the dirty f*cking hippies on the left, from labor unions, to Paul Krugman, to Gore and Kerry, to social security, and so on. People think I was being ticky tack with the Gore thing, and in isolation it would've been but a minor non-event. But it was the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back for me, yet another in a pattern of attacks against Democrats and their constituencies. He is the return of Bill Clinton-style triangulating personified. Now I'm willing to consider that this is all a front, and that he'd govern as progressively as Bush governed conservatively after his 2000 bullsh*t about being a "uniter" and "compassionate".

    really shows how Kos has done a 180 degree turn since Jan.  He has lost all credibility.  Will be interesting to see what the great "triangulator/uniter" does on May 31.  What principles, if any, will he try to uphold?  I think he will try to put on a good show, while at the same time trying to achieve whatever result is in his best interest.  I sure hope it is televised on CSPAN.

    Yeah but the difference between Clinton and (5.00 / 4) (#67)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:27:07 AM EST
    ..Obama, as far as Kos is concerned, must be that Obama is his triangulater, and that makes it alright.

    It Can't Happen Here (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by blogtopus on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:18:50 AM EST
    Not in the Netroots! Never!

    How long will it take the Obama Hangover to hit the Netroots when they realize they've been had? Will they be able to overlook the 'Orangeshirts' era?

    Check out (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by sas on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:20:01 AM EST
    today's maps - some polls are older, but many updates are included.  Somewhat different from Rove, but same result.

    Hillary beats McCain big time, Obama loses.

    Check out Mich and Fla especially for the two Dem. candidates


    Michigan crossover fun... (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by oldpro on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:24:12 AM EST
    ....remember those DK front-page posts urging everyone to crossover and vote for Romney and mess up the Michigan results?

    Ah, the good old days...

    Which later caused them to decry a re-vote (5.00 / 4) (#74)
    by Joan in VA on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:34:24 AM EST
    plan which wouldn't allow them to vote twice! Not legitimate, they wailed!

    Markos said exactly what Clinton said (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by Joan in VA on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:30:43 AM EST
    in the infamous "MI voting won't count for anything" remarks which have been severely edited by the Obama supporters. The  part left out is that, of course, they will be counted later because the DNC can't allow this disenfranchisement.  

    RE: Michigan Votes (5.00 / 3) (#79)
    by melro on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:45:57 AM EST
    Thank you--finally! I just finished pasting the pdf of a letter from Senator Levin and MI DNC Chair Debbie Dingell that explains Howard Dean should have reprimanded NH for jumping out of line right on top of Nevada's caucus in the first place. . http://www.michigandems.com/Levin-Dingell%20Letter.pdf

    I also explained that I vote in Michigan and Hillary, Dodd, Gravel, and Kucinich, as well as, Uncommitted and Other were on the ballot. Everyone here was told repeatedly about Obama, Biden, Richardson, and Edwards absence.

    MI DNC URGED everyone to vote uncommitted for the missing candidates because write in's might not be counted because the missing candidates failed to meet the deadline to file papers stating they would be a write in.

    I've been on a PAC in my district before. To be a write in is simply a matter of filing a paper up to I believe 10 days before the primary. I think these candidates would have had to do this with the MI Secy. of State. Obama missed a second chance just 10 days beforehand to get on MI's ballot.

    I keep asking what savvy politician would leave their name off not once but twice, and know about the faulty lopsided justice relative to NH? Surely, it would be nearly impossible to have a presidential primary election and eliminate an entire state especially after the last two presidential elections.There were other reasons he left his name off.

    damn liberals (5.00 / 7) (#80)
    by suskin on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:00:20 AM EST
    As a life-long Democrat it kills me to read these comments and realize how ridiculous this discussion regarding the seating of the FL and MI is and how much damage it will do to the entire Democratic Party up-ticket and down-ticket in the fall.  This Primary has been a farce, from the stripping of the FL & MI delegates, to the corrupt caucuses, to the ridiculous proportional delegate award system, to the blatant MSM Obama bias, to the race baiting and misogyny, to the calls for HRC to drop out before the voters have voted, to the empty unvetted candidate singing hope and change who behind the scenes does everything he can to block and ignore votes.  Democrats don't need the Republicans to Swift Boat them, they are doing it all by themselves; they are proving once again Democrats do not deserve the White House.  Those damn liberals!

    It's been clear for some time, that winning the WH comes second to Obama.  The prize is the Democratic Nomination, and BTD is probably right, the Democrats are just stupid enough to give it to him.

    Naive question, perhaps (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by janarchy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:30:40 AM EST
    but what the hell happened between January and February that made so many people come down with CDS and totally lose any objectivity, sanity or logic? I distinctly remember there being some neutrality and rational thinking with bloggers and some of the MSM (people on Air America, Olbermann). Somewhere around February, it suddenly all changed and went to All Obama, All The Time and has only gotten progressively (no pun intended) worse.

    It was like going to bed one night and thinking everything was fine, then waking up to find oneself on Bizarro World.

    Seeing stuff like this (points up to the article) just reminds me that I wasn't hallucinating a time when I thought Markos (and others) had a pretty decent grasp of what wsa going on.

    It was already apparent in NH (none / 0) (#95)
    by jackyt on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:18:13 PM EST
    The night of the NH primary, the talking heads started the WWTSBQ drum-roll. I remember Lawrence O'Donnell reporting, with some glee, that the press couldn't wait for Clinton to crash and burn. The story was told repeatedly about Clinton entering the press bus with coffee and donuts for everyone and being frozen out by all aboard. When she left, the reported comment was to the effect that "that was as embarrassing as running into an old girlfriend". The reason the press didn't like her? Her campaign just wasn't FUN for them.

    IMO what's changed is that some so-called A-list bloggers have decided that their own ambitions will be better served by climbing aboard the Obama funwagon. Given what now passes for "journalism", I think they'll fit seamlessly into the MCM.


    Reeking of Hypocrisy All 'Round (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by bmc on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:38:16 AM EST
    I really only want a fair process, and enfranchisement for all of the voters who have cast votes. If it helps Hillary, great. If not, she lost. But the outright fraud that has gone on in this primary process is stunning. Three states violate the rules--Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina--yet are allowed to by-pass the RBC sanctions for it. Two states violate the rules--Florida and Michigan--and are sanctioned with double the punishment.

    Something reeks in the DNC. Yes, the RBC ruled. Yes, the rules, the rules.

    But look. Riddle me this: If "the rules, the rules," then WHY not "the rules, the rules" for Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina?

    Tell me, do tell, Donna Brazile. WHY NOT IA, NH, and SC? They CLEARLY violated rule 11A on dates.

    Moreover, when a candidate voluntarily pulls his name off of a ballot, why does he get delegates? Obama wasn't on the ballot in Michigan; yet because the DNC knows that he ran a stealth campaign for "not committed" votes, he gets to COUNT them? Seems arbitrary and capricious to me.

    Rule 13.A.:

    "Fair Reflection of Presidential Preference."
    Delegates shall be allocated in a fashion that fairly reflects the expressed presidential preference or uncommitted status of the primary voters.

    Barack Obama took his name off the ballot. And, he didn't think in February that the DNC should allocate delegates based on a "non-campaign."

    I would argue would be that it certainly wouldn't be fair to allocate delegates based on a non-campaign. -- Barack Obama Feb 11, 2008


    So, basically, Obama and Markos are two of the biggest hypocrites around, even though they are competing with champions of hypocrisy, by the name of Dean, Brazile and Pelosi.

    Shame on 'em. I won't collude in their FIXED PRIMARY PROCESS.

    January 08. Surprising. (none / 0) (#13)
    by oculus on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:51:27 AM EST

    Shazaam! (none / 0) (#34)
    by stevenb on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:03:53 AM EST
    Nice find BTD!  Guess it makes you wonder: why did Kos go so deep in the tank for Obama?  And, is he foolishly hoping Obama will deliver him a more progressive America?  I doubt it will happen, but then again, everyone keeps talking about Obama's "Secret Plan."  

    I just hope it is the right secret plan...

    Is that secret plan (none / 0) (#50)
    by oldpro on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:12:00 AM EST
    from the (same) secret-plan handbook that gave us Nixon's secret plan to end the Vietnam War?

    Why? (none / 0) (#85)
    by Cream City on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:23:22 AM EST
    (a) blog boyz traffic
    (b) lotsa hits
    (c) bigger advertising bux
    (d) bigger ego than smarts
    (e) all of the above

    And the answer is . . . now, c'mon, you all have been doing the reading, so this one oughta be easy.


    FYI re Rules Cmte thread below (none / 0) (#42)
    by RonK Seattle on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:07:47 AM EST
    ... wehre comments are closed.

    David McDonald is in my estimation a genuine uncommitted. He's a principled, partisan Democrat and a fine attorney -- concerned for the Party, concerned for a 2008 victory, concerned for the integrity of the Rules going forward (all of which puts him in a tough spot).

    A more recent interview (4/18) can be found here:
    An Undecided Superdelegate in Washington

    Didn't he say something ridiculous (none / 0) (#46)
    by andgarden on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:10:08 AM EST
    at the August meeting?

    Yes he did (none / 0) (#92)
    by RonK Seattle on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:09:53 PM EST
    ... but that's neither here nor there.

    Off topic (none / 0) (#49)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:11:35 AM EST
    but since the thread was closed I will allow it.

    I insist that comment be on topic (none / 0) (#48)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:10:56 AM EST

    Well, it all depends on HOW, HOWMANY (none / 0) (#62)
    by feet on earth on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:22:43 AM EST
    and for Whom are they seated.  

    Until the decision is made and analyzed and found fair, i.e.:
    . Is the will of the voters respected?
    . Are the SuperDs penalized in the same way/measure pledged delegates are penalized?
    . Is Obama penalized severely enough for having campaigned (running ads) in Florida?
    . Are the states that committed the same "Crime" (change primary election dates) also penalized in the same measure as Florida and Michigan?

    There will not be any possibility for even talking about a Unity Ticket or coming together under a nominee.

    Depending how the decision come down, a floor fight in Denver is inevitable. The fault for such an outcome is entirely on the DNC shoulders.

    It is not the media fault, they do what they do.  The decision making power throughout the primary process was in the DNC hands.  They infected it with the most virulent of illegitimacy.

    They will not and cannot fix it.  Only at the convention and with a free vote for all delegated could cure this malignant infection.  

    Hillary -- please start a viable third political party that has rules that make sense.  

    Totally 100% agree (none / 0) (#76)
    by Lupin on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:35:27 AM EST
    Of course they'll be seated. I can't imagine they won't. FL as is, I'd bet, and MI with some weird proportional system.

    Obama likes to attack Dems & Dem values (none / 0) (#77)
    by Josey on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:40:23 AM EST
    and only a newbie Dem senator propped up by the elite Washington establishment that always hated hicks Clinton and Carter - would be allowed to repeatedly trash the Clinton administration - the only 2-term Dem president since FDR.

    You are my favorite brat (none / 0) (#81)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:00:52 AM EST
    After myself of course.

    Obama is Bush (none / 0) (#83)
    by waldenpond on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:13:32 AM EST
    Note the comparison made between Obama and Bush.  Remember all of the ranting by Obama supporters whenever a Clinton supporter expressed doubts and said... this reminds me of Bush....  Ha!

    When did Markos decide Hillary was Teh Evil? (none / 0) (#98)
    by kempis on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:26:17 PM EST
    Anyone know? I honestly didn't follow things too closely over there....

    What happened to Kos? (none / 0) (#99)
    by jfung79 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:29:17 PM EST
    If he was writing this stuff in January where he was basically choosing between Clinton and Edwards, what happened to him to make him lose his critical faculties about Obama?  Weird!

    Sounds Good To Me (none / 0) (#100)
    by squeaky on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:03:18 PM EST
    And given this I expect that he would also demand seating the Fl and MI delegates. Thanks for posting this, BTD and the other link.

    Rich Lowry's Right (none / 0) (#104)
    by Barbara D on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:49:00 PM EST
    I strongly agree with Rich Lowry. The Democratic establishment is willing to trade away the party's position as standard bearer for counting the votes to get their favorite child in office. They will have no leg to stand on the the next tight election with the Republicans.