home

Counting the Votes Is . . .

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:38:46 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg This!! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Just so I understand the Obama blog argument, they say that calling for counting the votes is the most vile, most outrageous, most heinous act in the history of politics. Did I get that right?

But now for the $64 question, does Obama agree?

This is an Open thread.

comments closed

< The Rules Are the Rules, Except When They Are Not | Obama Talks . . . About The Florida Delegates >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Counting the Votes Is . . . | 235 comments (235 topical)
    The Obama blogs have expressly said (5.00 / 5) (#1)
    by andgarden on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:40:06 PM EST
    that "votes" don't mater. Only the roolz matter.

    Incoming. (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by oculus on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:45:26 PM EST
    You, sir, are trying to stir up trouble.

    [ Parent ]
    isn't that normally your job??? (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Kathy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:48:15 PM EST
    This is such a mess.  Am I making this up or did I see a snarky lookin' Donna Brazile say on CNN that the May 31st meeting would not take long.  I think she said something like, "We all want to go on vacation, too."  She made it seem like the results were pre-ordained (which means nothing, because she is a butt)

    [ Parent ]
    Are they going to be televised? (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by MarkL on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:49:45 PM EST
    Will Brazile be present? It absolutely has to be televised, to be credible, and if Brazile is there, all the better. People can see her true colors.

    [ Parent ]
    All the better, for purposes of (none / 0) (#25)
    by oculus on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:51:42 PM EST
    "hue and cry."  [See comment below.]

    [ Parent ]
    Can't tell by the DNC (none / 0) (#72)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:06:57 PM EST
    web site information on the meeting. However, I saw Donna on some program almost 2 weeks ago where she said she thought it would be televised because these meetings are open to the public and none of their meetings are held secretly.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm not up (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by rnibs on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:03:40 PM EST
    on everything, but I thought I heard her say each state (FL and MI) would get 15 (50?) minutes to present their case.  If it's 15, that's a bit short for a situation like this.

    Did anyone else hear this, or am I massively uniformed on that count.  (I hope I am.)

    [ Parent ]

    Unbelievable. Vacation? (5.00 / 3) (#165)
    by joanneleon on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:33:16 PM EST
    She really said that?  

    I had hoped a DNC committee member would have said something about doing whatever it takes to conduct a fair process and arrive at the best possible solution, for everyone involved.

    But that would be too much to hope for from a complicit, dishonest operator like Donna Brazile.

    [ Parent ]

    how about (5.00 / 3) (#179)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:39:29 PM EST
    a permanent vacation.  I have no problem with that at all.

    [ Parent ]
    Don't see how it could be all that short; (none / 0) (#19)
    by oculus on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:49:44 PM EST
    each state gets to say it's piece.

    [ Parent ]
    As long as that peice.... (none / 0) (#160)
    by ineedalife on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:31:13 PM EST
    is only 15 minutes long. I thought that was all the time each presenting party is given. That in itself,  is enough to tell you that they will come with their minds made up.

    [ Parent ]
    15 minutes isn't fair! Floridians talk slower (none / 0) (#219)
    by Josey on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:56:29 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Brazille should resign from her job (none / 0) (#197)
    by bridget on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:45:21 PM EST
    it's obvious that she doesn't like it anymore

    esp. when voters stop acting like lemmings and ask annoying questions about counting MI and Fl votes

    and "change" is def. needed in the DNC club

    btw. if she does end up going on vacation after the 31st will she still  pundit on TV? I bet she finds energy for that no doubt in my mind.

    [ Parent ]

    Now Now (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by cawaltz on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:11:06 PM EST
    not all roolz, just the ones that BENEFIT Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    There a report (none / 0) (#133)
    by DCDemocrat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:23:17 PM EST
    that Clinton asked Obama to VP, and he refused.

    [ Parent ]
    Actually, that story says (none / 0) (#144)
    by madamab on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:26:22 PM EST
    that she wants to be Obama's VP.

    BTD live-blogged the Clinton conference call and her camp categorically denied that story.

    [ Parent ]

    I left a word out (none / 0) (#186)
    by DCDemocrat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:40:55 PM EST
    I meant to write, "be VP."

    [ Parent ]
    I thought Bill Clinton said he (none / 0) (#200)
    by zfran on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:46:28 PM EST
    thought she ought to be asked at the very least to be vp?

    [ Parent ]
    the authoritarian personality loves roolz (none / 0) (#230)
    by bridget on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:01:08 PM EST
    and feels uncomfortable with the democratic notion that "every vote must count" -
    just like in the good old days

    Obama "progressives" are fickle it seems to me

    Dean should add a chapter about them to his book describing the authoritarian rightwingers

    [ Parent ]

    The rulz are being Challenged (none / 0) (#237)
    by cpa1 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:09:17 PM EST
    Bill Nelson and Alcee Hastings will be filing a suit tomorrow against Howard Dean and the DNC, as reported by the Washington Post right here: http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/10/03/florida_lawmakers_file_suit_ag.html

    The suit says that Dean and the DNC are in violation of the US Constitution and the Voting Rights Act.  Like I have said all along, Dean should have put the FL and MI delegations in the back of the convention hall, give them the worst hotel reservations and withhold their afternoon milk and cookies.  He had no right to take away the rights to vote of the people of Florida and all of us the give us a jilted nominating process.

    What will the Super Ds say when Obama loses.  What criteria did they use to select Obama?  That will be a great question and I cannot wait to hear hear the answers.  They can't say it was because Hillary lied because he lied a lot more.  It could not be because of his experience because he had none.  It couldn't be because of the people around him...no no Michelle and Jeremiah were not assets.  What the hell will they say?

    [ Parent ]

    Hooboy, ten days of this! (5.00 / 5) (#3)
    by oldpro on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:42:47 PM EST
    You are having waaaaay too much fun.

    Shooting fish in a barrel.

    I'm dyin laughing (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:44:19 PM EST
    Are you really old?  Will everything become as crystal clear for me given enough time?

    [ Parent ]
    Umm.... (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by oldpro on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:26:41 PM EST
    is 71+ "really old?"

    It feels older every time I turn on my laptop.

    Sigh...

    Crystal clear, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder...it appears...

    [ Parent ]

    Please don't encourage him. (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by oculus on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:44:20 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    encourage him? (5.00 / 4) (#50)
    by kredwyn on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:58:51 PM EST
    Who needs to encourage him...

    Oh...wait...

    Give me a B
    Give me a T
    Give me a D

    What's that spell?

    Trouble!!!

    [ Parent ]

    If it affects his nomination he will not agree. (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Saul on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:44:54 PM EST


    Amendment if it affects his nomination (5.00 / 1) (#210)
    by angie on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:50:43 PM EST
    he will not agree without ever coming out and actually saying he doesn't agree. I heard David Axlerod on NPR yesterday driving home from work and the amount of hemming and hawing, twisting, spinning and WORMing he was doing while insisting they were "committed to seating the delegates" made me so dizzy I almost had to pull over.

    [ Parent ]
    Maybe, but he does have a sick (5.00 / 1) (#234)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:04:21 PM EST
    belief system that once he gets the nomination, by any means necessary, everything will fall into place and people will all come together in line behind him.

    Remember, every place becomes Obamaland once he's been there.


    [ Parent ]

    Be careful what you wish for, BTD (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Jim J on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:46:55 PM EST
    'cause you almost always get it.

    Few people would be happier for HRC to triumph over Obama in this primary than me. But there remains a high likelihood that when the dust settles he will not only have more of all kinds of delegates, but a higher popular vote total as well. Obviously no one knows yet how that will shake out.

    My point to you is that raising a hue and cry over the popular vote issue, while important, should not be the sole rallying cry, simply because that path to the nomination is so easily eliminated should she in fact not prevail in the popular vote.

    In the big picture, only two things are apparent to me as self-evident:

    1. HRC's campaigns made some serious strategic blunders early on which Axelrod pounced on most effectively. Obama should not be penalized for this, that's how the game is played.

    2. A unity ticket is the only way out of this mess, as it has always been.


    Excuse me (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:52:23 PM EST
    I actually supported Obama on electability grounds.

    I have no real dog in the candidate fight. I just want to win in November.

    Apparently I am the only Dem who wants this.

    [ Parent ]

    LOL! (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by madamab on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:56:39 PM EST
    You were doing so well there for a while...then you say something like that!

    ;-)

    [ Parent ]

    You exaggerate. I have but to (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by oculus on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:57:47 PM EST
    comment:  SGBTRv.W as the reason I will vote for the Dem. nominee; accusations of fear-mongering and being an Obama supporter descend.

    [ Parent ]
    None of us are allowed to openly speculate (5.00 / 3) (#116)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:19:05 PM EST
    about voting for Obama until we have to.  I get a pass sometimes when I say such silly things and everybody just ignores my post because I have combat fatigue ;)

    [ Parent ]
    No speculation here (5.00 / 1) (#211)
    by txpolitico67 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:53:26 PM EST
    It's either Clinton or McCain.  After all the shenanigans from Camp Obama, no way and NO how I would support or vote for him.

    [ Parent ]
    They are afraid to mess w/you. (none / 0) (#130)
    by oculus on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:22:30 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Is that what it is? (none / 0) (#148)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:26:47 PM EST
    Afraid?  How come I can't even make my own kids afraid of me but I can scare a bunch of cheetoh eaters?

    [ Parent ]
    Once again, to BTD or anyone else (5.00 / 3) (#85)
    by zfran on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:11:25 PM EST
    as for me (Judge Judy's book title) "Don't Pee On My Leg And Tell Me It's Raining" is a classic example of the dirt and filth and lies being slung this season. I am not cattle, I am not one to push around to your wish(es), but I am intelligent and free to vote. I thought I was a die-hard dem until this year...now, now I am an American, looking for the best to run our country in these difficult times.

    [ Parent ]
    I know someone that (5.00 / 3) (#109)
    by Practically Lactating on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:17:27 PM EST
    likes to use that phrase.

    Another favorite of hers is sh**ing in your ice cream. This phrase is also apt, since Obama has chosen to do exactly that by supporting the disenfranchisement of FL and MI.

    [ Parent ]

    Someone earlier compared us to (5.00 / 2) (#233)
    by abfabdem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:03:48 PM EST
    Bush's evangelical supporters.  They were used in every election and then ignored once the party got what it wanted, but they were considered oh so reliable to vote for him no matter what.  I don't want to be used that way.  

    [ Parent ]
    not only (none / 0) (#34)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:54:41 PM EST
    did her campaign get beat by a freshman senator but she is not winning the SD war. I am perplexed. With the race so close, concerns about the ge, a big win in Illinois which counted for 600k votes, slight momentum edge, how is it possible a freshman senator is pulling more SD's, who appear to be the wedgers in this race? It is not the system or the florida votes or michigan votes that is costing HIllary anything, the SD's have been going to Obama more often and it would seem to me that every SD knows about Florida and Michigan and can vote with that in mind...

    [ Parent ]
    The Super-Ds didn't get where they (none / 0) (#51)
    by oculus on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:58:59 PM EST
    are based on good judgment?  Obama's got the money?  

    [ Parent ]
    I have no idea (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:01:06 PM EST
    It just seems to me even as an obama supporter, perplexing that she is not pulling those votes especially in light of the pop vote and electoral predictors. (although i think obama will win the ge)

    [ Parent ]
    I think the question can be flipped (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by Valhalla on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:12:02 PM EST
    to ask, if Obama is so clearly the winner on all metrics and has a strong electibility argument, why did the predictions of a flood of SDs for him never happen?

    I started seeing 'flood' predictions back in February.  But it has been more of a trickle, a few here and a few there.

    Same numbers, different interpretation.

    [ Parent ]

    as well it should be (none / 0) (#126)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:21:03 PM EST
    But I don't think Obama is a clear winner on any metric yet. I do think Clinton has completely not delivered on the SD side and I don't get it.

    [ Parent ]
    Clear metrics (5.00 / 1) (#241)
    by Valhalla on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:30:53 PM EST
    I don't think he has all the metrics clearly on his side either, I was trying to make an 'even if' argument.

    I've wondered about this too and I think there's a bunch of reasons with regard to the SDs.  But one of the biggest is that esp in  Jan. and Feb., there was so much attention paid to the remarkable rise in BO's support (and it was remarkable, even though I don't support him) that it seemed distinctly possible that he could carry it through to the GE.  At the time it seemed like his support was escalating without an end in sight.  Yes, the distinct slant of MSM helped, but fair or not it contributed to that impression.  Everyone wants to ride the victory train.

    Maybe it was optimism, maybe it was being led astray by the loudest and shoutiest on the net, whatever, but they either didn't foresee that Obama would max out his support in March.  His popularity, which was going up, up, up started going totally flat.  Very realistic questions about electibility started slipping into the conversation.

    I'm guessing a lot of SDs thought that if they went for Clinton at that point, they'd be continuing to divide the race, but going for Obama would help get them to a point where there was a clear frontrunner, even if they had doubts about electibility.  It was an attempt to make him electible (or improve his electibility) by voting for him.  That is they hoped to create a fact by acting as if the fact were already true.

    George Bush went very far for a very long time on the 'if I say it's true enough times everyone will believe me' theme.  So I don't really blame them for trying.  But what they forgot about was the actual voters' opinions, esp. in the key states that had yet to vote.  And they forgot that Clinton's been down before, and come back.  Honestly, given the way she was gone after by the press and Republicans in the past 20 years, the fact that she's still standing is rather remarkable.

    I think in a lot of ways it was a basic error in data interpretation.  His support was escalating and many people thought it would continue.  But primaries aren't physics.  Past isn't prescient.  When the apple falls down from the tree 10 times in a row, you can safely assume it will fall down the next 10 times.  But just because the last 10 states voted one way doesn't mean the next 10 will.

    Or, that's the way I explain it to myself.


    [ Parent ]

    Out of respect for Clinton (none / 0) (#174)
    by waldenpond on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:36:44 PM EST
    I keep reading Obama has the delegates.  Anonymous statements from superdeez are they are waiting until the last primary and the following couple of weeks... they are holding off out of respect for Clinton.  She is highly regarded and they need to work together when they are in the Senate.  The Clinton's still have a lot of influence, money and power.

    [ Parent ]
    The SD"s have all the courage of (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by MarkL on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:01:20 PM EST
    a just caught philanderer.

    [ Parent ]
    What is that supposed to mean? (none / 0) (#111)
    by oculus on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:17:50 PM EST
    Maybe I read your comment as limited to just caught philanderer who is also an elected politician.  

    [ Parent ]
    The current elected SD's want Obama's (none / 0) (#70)
    by ding7777 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:05:43 PM EST
    fundraising prowness on their side  and do not want an Obama backed primary challenger

    [ Parent ]
    well it sounds to me (none / 0) (#75)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:07:36 PM EST
    that the SD's are the problem here and not Axelrod and Obama. If what is better for them and not the party that is selfish, but if the system is not broken and the SD's have the interest of the party at heart than Hillary did not earn it. The system blows.

    [ Parent ]
    Jeese Jackson jr to a Clinton SD (5.00 / 3) (#141)
    by ding7777 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:24:43 PM EST
    You might find some young primary challenger placing you in a difficult position

    Obama is using the same m.o.that Tom Delay used to keep the House republicans in-line.

    [ Parent ]

    they're afraid (none / 0) (#236)
    by Dr Molly on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:06:39 PM EST
    to be perceived as blocking the nomination of The Great One.

    [ Parent ]
    I'll tell you one thing... (5.00 / 4) (#9)
    by madamab on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:46:56 PM EST
    if Obama says does NOT agree, expect more pretzelification from the Obama bloggers as they rush to justify their previous positions.

    LOL!

    more interesting (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:48:14 PM EST
    what if he DOES agree?
    then what do they do?

    [ Parent ]
    Sorry I wasn't clear... (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by madamab on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:55:45 PM EST
    I meant, if Obama does NOT agree with the bloggers that counting votes is a disaster of momentous proportions, we will see some pretzelification quite quickly.

    [ Parent ]
    either or (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:57:42 PM EST
    actually.
    it will be fun to watch.

    [ Parent ]
    Cirque De So Wrong (none / 0) (#201)
    by blogtopus on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:47:09 PM EST
    Watch the contortionists mystify!

    [ Parent ]
    I keep wondering (5.00 / 2) (#140)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:24:39 PM EST
    what the Obama supporters are thinking his administration is going to look like.

    What changes are they expecting?

    What are they hoping for?

    What will they be able to say, "he is everything I thought he was, and more" to?


    [ Parent ]

    interesting question (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:34:48 PM EST
    I dont think any pol could live up to the godlike stature to which they have elevated him.
    I can imagine some extremely disillusioned youngsters down the road.

    [ Parent ]
    What does taking back the govt (none / 0) (#191)
    by waldenpond on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:42:34 PM EST
    mean?  All of these statements are just so weak to me.  None of it means a thing.  

    Do I think a Dem is going to give back any of the power the Bush admin has managed to garner for the White House?  No. (McCain is the only one so far I have heard say he will have no signing statements)    

    Do I think govt will continue business as usual? Yes.  

    Do I think they will continue to pass legislation I absolutely disagree with?  Yes.  

    It's all very naive.  I expect no change.  I support Clinton because I think she could make some movement on a couple of policies that are important to me.  I thought that was a big deal.

    [ Parent ]

    There is a certain religious fervor (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by DCDemocrat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:14:37 PM EST
    that some observers have noted in the followers of Barack Obama.  My only question is whether they bless themselves with the Sign of the Pretzel before or after they recite the antiphon, "Yes, we can."

    [ Parent ]
    This morning on local public radio (5.00 / 2) (#127)
    by oculus on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:21:44 PM EST
    an author was interviewed about religious cultism.  He was a Jewish settler in Hebron, but left after the civilian Palestian seminary students were murdered by some of the settlers.  He became a rabbi.  He rejected the idea Islam rejects democracy, based on the Koran; mentioned the Hebraic Bible; Crusades, etc.  Quite interesting.

    He refused to extend his thoughts to the current Dem. primary contest, but I was as he spoke.  And not just as to Obama suppporters.  I think both Obama supporters and Clinton supporters can be quite irrational in believing their respective candidate's words and assigning infallability.

    [ Parent ]

    Wrong Assumption on (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by txpolitico67 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:33:06 PM EST
    your part oculus.

    I don't take Hillary Clinton's words as gospel. As a 40 yr old man, I listen to her words and parse them out, just like her policies.

    And I'm not some 20something foaming at the mouth calling people racists just because someone doesn't vote my way.

    In the words of BTD, SPEAKING FOR ME ONLY, I value my vote, and I won't throw it away on Barack Obama just because he has a 'D' by his name.

    [ Parent ]

    Good. Please note (none / 0) (#193)
    by oculus on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:43:10 PM EST
     I sd. "can" not "do."

    [ Parent ]
    Here Is A Recent Statement From Obama (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by MO Blue on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:26:52 PM EST
    on the issue.

    Obama is also set to hold a big rally in Florida, and while he has said he is committed to seating both states' delegates, his campaign has made it clear that they would not accept the original tallies. LINK


    [ Parent ]
    Does Obama agree? How would we know (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Cream City on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:47:33 PM EST
    even if he speaks about it?  It will be more of W.O.R.M., so it will be parsed every which way.

    I really would not look forward to four or more years more of W.O.R.M.  It makes my head hurt -- if sometimes, admittedly, from laughing.

    just in (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:47:58 PM EST
    A large tornado has hit the ground just north of Denver, Colorado. Hope everyone in TL land is ok :)

    I just caught it on MSNBC (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by standingup on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:21:55 PM EST
    It is closer to Greeley and Fort Collins.  They are reporting two tractor trailers being overturned but nothing else at this time.  And it looked very large, possibly a 1/2 mile swath.  

    [ Parent ]
    Not good (none / 0) (#171)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:35:52 PM EST
    I know Colorado had a nasty one in the 60's.  Weather is changing every where too.

    [ Parent ]
    A local news outlet is reporting... (none / 0) (#183)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:40:06 PM EST
    "9NEWS Northern Newsroom reporter Adam Chodak and Photojournalist Gary Wolf saw a tornado pass by them, right over Highway 34.

    The storm brought golf ball to baseball sized hail.

    The windshield of the 9NEWS vehicle was broken by the hail.

    9NEWS Meteorologist Nick Carter is near Highway 85 and E-470 and says he saw what appeared to be a small tornado near Boulder County. A large cloud of debris, according to Nick, is moving north."

    Certainly doesn't sound like a big one--just normal late May weather for us.


    [ Parent ]

    Video (none / 0) (#238)
    by standingup on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:13:12 PM EST
    from MSNBC.  It looks pretty big to me.

    [ Parent ]
    How big? (none / 0) (#35)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:54:58 PM EST
    I didn't know what a big tornado was until I moved down here.  Only saw tornados tear some stuff up in Colorado but never kill anyone.

    [ Parent ]
    sorry (none / 0) (#43)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:57:03 PM EST
    they had no story linked to it on cnn..so i don't know :)

    [ Parent ]
    Tell that... (none / 0) (#167)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:34:40 PM EST
    ...to the people who had family that died in (or as a result of) the Holly tornado.

    [ Parent ]
    I read... (none / 0) (#235)
    by NWHiker on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:06:30 PM EST
    a large tomato and thought "huh?".

    I hope everyone is ok.

    [ Parent ]

    Funny - they're calling Clinton cynical. (5.00 / 4) (#13)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:48:02 PM EST
    Cynical is treating voters as if they are mere pawns in this game.

    Cynical and stupid (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by Coral on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:56:05 PM EST
    is talking about voters as if they are just pawns in this game.

    Voters are always treated as if they are pawns. Politicians usually talk a better game than the Obama camp is doing now on this issue.

    [ Parent ]

    Popularity Contest (none / 0) (#142)
    by Athena on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:24:49 PM EST
    What happens when the popular vote is not "popular?"  It doesn't count.

    [ Parent ]
    And (none / 0) (#147)
    by Athena on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:26:43 PM EST
    Does anyone here remember (or posted) the very good comment several months ago about how MI and FL had to count because they were outcome-determinative.  

    That's the real issue - the outcome could change if these votes count.

    That makes them matter even more.

    [ Parent ]

    Heh (5.00 / 8) (#16)
    by Steve M on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:48:26 PM EST
    Something that has become abundantly clear in this primary is that a good writer can use demagoguery and over-the-top rhetoric to make even the slightest issue appear to be a crime against humanity of Hitlerian proportions.

    When I read well-spoken diarists like Kid Oakland and TINS calling Hillary the Queen of All Evil for engaging in the exact same conduct that they excuse away when their own candidate does it, it makes me realize how much of it is just words, and it makes me think back to all the times I read their impassioned anti-Bush diaries and agreed with them.

    Were they on the money in those diaries I enjoyed, or were they just blowing things all out of proportion and I agreed because I wanted to agree?  I have no idea.  Once you realize someone is nothing but a propagandist you really start to question everything they say.

    It's been a real epiphany for me (5.00 / 11) (#21)
    by Jim J on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:50:37 PM EST
    to see how vacuous and morally and intellectually bankrupt so-called progressives and liberals can actually be. I am beginning to see the true enemy not as conservatives or Republicans, but extremists of any stripe.

    [ Parent ]
    Makes you appreciate Steve Clemons, (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by MarkL on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:55:32 PM EST
    doesn't it?

    [ Parent ]
    Amen! (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Y Knot on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:59:20 PM EST
    That's why I try to be a voice of extreme moderation.

    [ Parent ]
    Keith Olbermann (5.00 / 3) (#54)
    by coolit on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:59:42 PM EST
    was never actually intelligent, he was just always extremist against Bush.  Now that he is showing how extreme he is in a different area, he is getting pretty ugly.

    [ Parent ]
    Just sent an e-mail off the MSNBC (none / 0) (#77)
    by zfran on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:07:51 PM EST
    in protest of their coverage. Disgraceful. Mike Barnacle (posted this on another subject) said:
    If Clinton is on the ticket as vp then it would "make Obama seem ordinary" I was appalled. No on challenged it.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by samanthasmom on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:14:48 PM EST
    is an "ordinary" Chicago politician.  I lived there for a couple of years.  He's blends right in.

    [ Parent ]
    He's been a standout in the US Senate (none / 0) (#178)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:38:07 PM EST
    by some people's assessment, apparently.

    I am baffled by this whole thing. He's not even qualified to RUN for president, let alone BE the president.


    [ Parent ]

    Really? (none / 0) (#205)
    by waldenpond on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:49:35 PM EST
    I hadn't heard that.  I know he got a dressing down for trying to take credit for the work on the immigration bill and took another hit when he tried to take credit for Dodd/Frank.  I personally related to the one quote where he was called a dilettante.

    [ Parent ]
    OMG! (none / 0) (#81)
    by madamab on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:10:44 PM EST
    IACF!

    Do they ever think about what they're saying before they say it?

    Shouldn't we nominate the better candidate? Or is that against the New MSNObama Rulz?

    [ Parent ]

    I agree (none / 0) (#239)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:24:22 PM EST
    100%. It seems the left blogosphere is just like free republic. Full of screeching group think and idol worship.

    Who's the moderate in this election? I guess anyone that is hated by the blogsphere.

    [ Parent ]

    Enough (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:49:26 PM EST
    Let's talk about trees again.  The keylime I have had good luck with is a grafted tree.  The trees I started from seed were japanese red maple and they have various degrees of redness, not consistent from seed.  I'm going to try taking some tree cuttings this year and see if I can get any to sprout using root stimulator.  I have read about it and some people say it is a lost cause while others claim terrific success.  I must at least make an effort.  I want an avacado in my backyard next to the lake.

    well, I'd rather read about gardening (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by oculus on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:54:11 PM EST
    than about cats, but that isn't saying much.

    [ Parent ]
    Ever used Super Thrive? (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by magisterludi on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:57:20 PM EST
    I soak seeds in it before I start them. It's totally organic, just vitamins and minerals, but it has never failed me.

    It's great for transplanting, too. Soak the roots before planting and root-shock is virtually non-existent.

    [ Parent ]

    Never tried it but I will (none / 0) (#57)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:00:27 PM EST
    About this time here I stop transplanting because it gets so stinkin hot that it seems like the plants suffer too much shock.  Sounds like it would help.

    [ Parent ]
    Agrees because of omission (5.00 / 4) (#22)
    by BarnBabe on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:50:49 PM EST
    Obama KNOWS what is going on at the Blogs. He said he looked in at DK and it was pretty much as he expected. He didn't post. He lurked. He has a user ID from when he posted in '05. I am quite sure he is aware of what is happening over there on his behalf even if it a staff member of the Blog division. He uses every tool at his disposal but pay attention to the word 'use'. I doubt that if he got in office he would welcome or listen to any of the progressives. He would have to get back to them. Sweetie.

    You don't anticipate a cabinet post (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by oculus on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:55:43 PM EST
    for bloggers?

    [ Parent ]
    Is "Minister of (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by madamab on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:00:13 PM EST
    Intellectual Dishonesty" available?

    [ Parent ]
    that would (none / 0) (#176)
    by txpolitico67 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:37:43 PM EST
    have too many contenders:  Arianna Huffington, Aravosis, Markos Moulitsas, the entire anchors/staff at MSNBC/NBC, MoDo...

    [ Parent ]
    That one was a LOL in the office no less. (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by BarnBabe on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:02:56 PM EST
    They will wonder what I am doing laughing about balance sheets. Ha. OK, sounds good. And another flame war will insue. I am sure THEY would all want that position. They can be typing back and forth all day long.

    [ Parent ]
    Harness all that hot air and (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by oculus on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:08:36 PM EST
    we won't need OPEC.

    [ Parent ]
    One liners ruling today (none / 0) (#120)
    by BarnBabe on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:19:49 PM EST
    Are you and Capt Howdy in competition today with making me LOL? Heh.

    [ Parent ]
    Can you tell I am really sick of (none / 0) (#145)
    by oculus on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:26:26 PM EST
    FL/MI and unity ticket.  10 more days, Lord, 10 more days.

    [ Parent ]
    Yeah, But You Have To Admit That (none / 0) (#185)
    by MO Blue on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:40:49 PM EST
    it is fun to see a certain A-list blogger's own words used against him.

    Other than that, I'm not sure if there is anything that hasn't already been said about FL/MI or the unity ticket.

    IMO FL and MI if resolved will somehow benefit Obama and there will be no unity ticket. The first will tick me and voters in the states off even more. The second doesn't bother me a bit because I'm not in favor of Clinton as Obama's VP.  

    [ Parent ]

    Before Obama made the best speech evah, (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by samanthasmom on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:04:40 PM EST
    he posted at HuffPo to try to explain away the good reverend.  I thought the Obama supporters were going to wet all over their keyboards.

    [ Parent ]
    But he never posted again at DKos (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by BarnBabe on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:12:40 PM EST
    They were leading the fight of the Blogs but because of all the new users, many of them did realize BHO posted there in defense of the Roberts vote in 'o5. He was certainly surprised when what he said was not greated with flowers, etc.

    [ Parent ]
    Hell (5.00 / 2) (#158)
    by cawaltz on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:30:59 PM EST
    With the way they are acting would YOU listen to them? I know I wouldn't. Dailykos sounds like an asylum. You've got diary after diary about how evil Clinton is or how racist such and such state is or how Clinton is like some stalker. Seriously. Even if Clinton and Obama aren't best friends I'm sure they have to laugh(or want to tear their hair out) at how absurd som of their most vehement supports have been against the opposition. Obama keeping his distance from Daily kos is probablonew of the smarter things he's done this campaign season. I'd distance myself from that lunacy too.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama blocked the MI re-vote (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by Prabhata on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:52:23 PM EST
    That should answer the question about how Obama sees the issue of counting MI. Hillary stated that she couldn't understand why BO would go against a re-vote because at the time he might have even won.

    What I said last night (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by Edgar08 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:54:15 PM EST
    Everything that represents a deviation from Democracy, caucusses, delegate systems, roolz, Obama does well.

    Why would he want to count votes?

    I'm in Michigan and Obama Chose (5.00 / 5) (#55)
    by Bob Boardman on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:00:12 PM EST
    to take his name off of the Michigan ballot.

    Obama, in pandering to Iowa, chose not to let me vote for him.

    Then Obama chose not to do a re-vote so that I could not vote for him in a re-vote.

    Then Obama went to North Carolina and shot me the bird.

    Why should I choose to vote for Obama in the fall?

    Please start the revolution without me....

    Well (none / 0) (#132)
    by Athena on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:23:15 PM EST
    Uh, they did.  Sorry, Michigan.

    [ Parent ]
    fav quote: popular vote is a ridiculous metric (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by DandyTIger on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:06:25 PM EST
    for the primaries -- Rachel Maddow.

    Still my favorite quote, and pretty much the feeling I get from the Obama campaign and it's supporters. And it fits the attitude made clear by Obama in San Francisco about how blue collar worker types are bitter and cling to their guns and religion.

    So the feeling your getting BTD of counting the votes being vile, etc., I think is in keeping with that attitude.

    I'd strongly recommend they change their tune. But then I have friends and family that, gasp, are blue collar workers, so what do I know. I'd also strongly recommend they just count the votes and delegates in MI & FL. FL as is. And some compromise with MI, either letting uncommitted be that (which means most will be Obama), split them up proportionally to candidates not on the ballot (via polls at the time), or even giving them to Obama. The last not being the best, but it could save the parties butt.

    Rush Limbaugh's suggestion on the radio ... (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by dwmorris on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:07:41 PM EST
    this morning is that we count each vote in MI and FL as 3/5, analogous to the 3/5ths clause that was rescinded after the Civil War. He's making a big deal about Democratic Party hypocrisy on one-person-one-vote. Shame on the Obama campaign for letting the Republicans seize the high ground on this issue.

    ouch, that is embarrassing (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by DandyTIger on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:20:05 PM EST
    Dems on the committee better wake up and fix this right now. Maybe it's a new concept to the party, but one person one vote is a cool idea, they may want to look into it.

    [ Parent ]
    It's more Operation Chaos (none / 0) (#125)
    by cannondaddy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:20:59 PM EST
    he really just wants to see this go to the convention.  Limbaugh is good at talking, but not at acting.  You can usually tell when he doesn't believe whatever it is he is saying.

    [ Parent ]
    It doesn't matter (none / 0) (#143)
    by samanthasmom on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:26:08 PM EST
    if he believes.  He thought it and said it, and now it's out there to be heard.

    [ Parent ]
    No, it's Operation Turn Obama into Dukakis n/t (none / 0) (#189)
    by dwmorris on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:42:28 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    This is what we were all saying (none / 0) (#134)
    by madamab on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:23:23 PM EST
    months ago.

    You don't let the Republicans look like they are the party of enfranchisement.

    The irony is far, far to bitter.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama is a walking, talking cornucopia of ... (none / 0) (#217)
    by dwmorris on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:56:24 PM EST
    wedge issues.

    [ Parent ]
    Why are we f*cking with Venezuela? (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by kdog on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:09:57 PM EST
    Link

    If we're not careful, the drug war could start a conventional one.  Assuming our excuse is correct, that we were conducting some kind of anti-drug mission and drifted into Venezuelan airspace...for all I know we were testing their defenses or spying.

    I never liked bullies in school...and I don't like the fact that my country, the country that I love, is a big fat international bully.  

    Too bad Clinton/Obama/McCain all favor the foreign policy of being a big fat bully.

    great ruling (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:10:48 PM EST
    Texas had no right to take polygamists' kids, court rules.... The Third Court of Appeals in Austin ruled that the grounds for removing the children were "legally and factually insufficient" under Texas law. They did not immediately order the return of the children.

    That whole case.... (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by kdog on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:20:44 PM EST
    really left me scratching my head.  

    Despite my mixed feelings, I was confident that Texas overstepped their boundaries and went a little nutty with the seizing of children.  I'm glad the courts agree...but it's an empty ruling until the kids are back in the care of their mothers.

    [ Parent ]

    wacky sure (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:22:18 PM EST
    but sets a horrible precedent for how kids can be snatched up by the state who are horribly inadequate at child care.

    [ Parent ]
    Yep.... (none / 0) (#157)
    by kdog on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:30:09 PM EST
    <