home

Obama Talks . . . About The Florida Delegates

I do not imagine he is inspired by anything but the purest of principles, otherwise the tender sensibilities of Josh Marshall might be bruised, but here is Barack Obama on the Florida delegates:

Delving deeper into Florida's Democratic delegate debacle than he ever has to date, Sen. Barack Obama said Wednesday that "a very reasonable solution" would be to count Florida's disputed primary votes and cut the state's delegation to the convention in half.

I am not sure what principle Obama is defending here, but I am sure Josh Marshall is proud of Obama''s principled stand. Politics is surely not involved in Obama's position. Never. No way. Otherwise, Josh's feelings might be hurt.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

Comments closed

< Counting the Votes Is . . . | Thursday Afternoon Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Hee hee hee hee... (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by madamab on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:59:02 PM EST
    you are killing me!

    Does Obama have any thoughts on, you know, counting the votes?

    Of Michigan, I mean? (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by madamab on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:59:41 PM EST
    (stupid fingers)

    Parent
    Florida in particular MUST BE COUNTED (none / 0) (#211)
    by Eleanor A on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:52:57 PM EST
    Otherwise, the 14 states with GOP-controlled legislatures (among them Florida, Ohio, Missouri and Arizona) will see their primaries moved in 2012, simply so the Republicans can screw with the Democratic nominating process.

    Although, now that the GOP has seen the dischord over FL/MI this cycle, it may be too late.  They've probably already coordinated plans to do exactly that in all 14 states.  (Don't think they won't; these are the same folks who've been determined to not only manipulate ballots but put lightning-rod social issues like abortion, gay marriage, etc. on statewide ballots in Federal election years.)

    Parent

    Penalty rendered (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:03:51 PM EST
    Why should Florida and Michigan avoid any penalty for violating rules that 48 other states abided by?
    the penalty has been dealt, by not making a decision till May 31st, and not having them be in the "count" 2209 vs.  the Obama number, they lost their advantage of going ahead of schedule.  

    How do you solve a problem like Florida? (none / 0) (#63)
    by Rictor Rockets on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:24:27 PM EST
    the penalty has been dealt, by not making a decision till May 31st, and not having them be in the "count" 2209 vs.  the Obama number, they lost their advantage of going ahead of schedule.  

    And now they get rewarded by being able to play kingmaker at the very end, without any penalties.

    Nope. Sorry. Don't see the fairness in that. I doubt the other 48 states would see the fairness either.

    Count the votes. Strip the delegates of one half of their votes which was...you know..one of the original rules to begin with. The fact that they get any votes now is compromise enough.

    Again, I predict this is how it's going to shake out with Florida. If I remember correctly, Florida already indicated that they were "cool" with this.

    If it were up to me, I might have instead stripped the Supers of their votes, and kept the pledge delegates as is, but I'm not sure how "fair" that is, vs. instantly satisfying.

    Parent

    Uh, Stellaaa (none / 0) (#126)
    by Kathy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:56:14 PM EST
    am I the only one who is skeptical?  Obama has said all along that he wants this to be resolved, then behind the scenes he does everything he can do to block whatever he can.

    Parent
    Speak w/forked tongue? (none / 0) (#129)
    by oculus on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:57:18 PM EST
    McCain style (none / 0) (#153)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:18:59 PM EST
    He gets the media that he is against torture, all the liberals, think he is reasonable, then: wham, votes against it.  I don't believe them for a minute.  They have fanaticized their troops, now there is no going back.  

    Look, at Somermby today...it's brilliant and it exposes what we thought all along.  

    Parent

    Plus the biggest penalty: no campaigning (none / 0) (#195)
    by Exeter on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:57:43 PM EST
    No Jefferson Jackson dinners, no millions of campaign dollars spent int the state, no boost in voter registrations, no nothing!

    Parent
    Gasp (5.00 / 4) (#9)
    by cawaltz on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:05:20 PM EST
    Are you insinuating.....THE ONE........is playing politics with MI and FL(to his own benefit)? But, but, but that would be EVIL? Oh wait, I forgot that logic only applies if your name happens to be Clinton. Sigh.

     

    Obama Blocked Revotes (5.00 / 3) (#77)
    by Athena on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:29:57 PM EST
    Why isn't Hillary talking more about Obama blocking any revote?

    Turn up the volume on his obstruction!

    Parent

    Let her take the high road. (none / 0) (#190)
    by samanthasmom on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:51:05 PM EST
    Count every vote, and seat the delegations with full privileges.  Let the rest of us let the world know who is keeping and has kept it from happening all along. The people of Florida and Michigan are not stupid.

    Parent
    oh! (5.00 / 4) (#11)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:05:36 PM EST
    "In all these races if I didn't campaign at all and this had just been a referendum on name recognition, Sen. Clinton would be the nominee,'' Obama told the Times during his first campaign trip to Florida in eight months. "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."

    that would explain why he fought a revote tooth and nail I guess.


    Begs the Question (5.00 / 5) (#18)
    by Athena on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:09:42 PM EST
    Senator Obama - why then didn't you want a revote so that voters could really get to know you?

    Parent
    If Obama can't win (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by madamab on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:10:37 PM EST
    without messing with the process this much, then what is going to happen when all the cards are stacked against him in the fall?

    Parent
    We'll be making lots of popcorn? (5.00 / 5) (#26)
    by nycstray on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:12:10 PM EST
    He's from the Chicago school (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Prabhata on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:13:46 PM EST
    You make the other candidate quit.  He's probably figuring out how he can make McCain have a heart attack.

    Parent
    I knew who he was (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by madamab on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:12:37 PM EST
    in 2004 after he made that great speech at the Democratic National Convention.

    I think most people interested in politics were pretty impressed with him then. I know I was.

    Parent

    My hubby was also impressed. (3.00 / 2) (#53)
    by cawaltz on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:20:19 PM EST
    That was before he found out he is a racist. He's not nearly as impressed now as he was then.

    Parent
    I missed his oratory skills (none / 0) (#114)
    by zfran on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:48:45 PM EST
    Change is coming, preached to me, is not oratory skilling..It's a message to his flock of followers..follow w/o questioning!!!

    Parent
    Name recognition contest (5.00 / 4) (#34)
    by Manuel on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:14:14 PM EST
    That must be what we just had in WV and KY.  Of course the Obama blogs won't be tagging this comment as disingenous.


    Parent
    yeah (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:15:59 PM EST
    with a name like his maybe he shouldnt even to there.

    Parent
    GO there (none / 0) (#43)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:16:15 PM EST
    Oooh, now you got my blood boiling (5.00 / 3) (#54)
    by ruffian on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:20:49 PM EST
    again. He thinks that here in FL, by JANUARY 2008, we had never heard of Barack Obama.  As I said at the time he first started saying this in January, we do get that big series of internet tubes down here, and also all of the TV stations.  We did not need the blessed presence of The One to set foot here to know who he was and what he stood for.

    Parent
    No, (5.00 / 3) (#85)
    by rnibs on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:32:51 PM EST
    he prolly figures Floridians were too busy trying to become part of Appalachia, grabbing their guns and religion and whatnot, to know who he was.

    Parent
    Wait... (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by madamab on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:46:23 PM EST
    you mean Florida is NOT part of Appalachia?

    But-but-but...isn't one of the Great Lakes in Florida?

    Parent

    Only when we take a break (none / 0) (#178)
    by ruffian on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:43:16 PM EST
    from reflecting on the great ideas of the Republican party.

    Parent
    3 days before the FL primary (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by Josey on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:59:08 PM EST
    Obama had won the SC primary - with much positive media attention.
    Floridians knew him and basically only college students and Blacks bought his "hope and change."
    Obama and Obamamites want to rub it in - a newbie senator took down a former first first lady & senator. But they ignore the part about the media and Washington establishment promoting Obama and concealing negative info about him - to date.


    Parent
    Self-Defeating (none / 0) (#202)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:15:54 PM EST
    By not getting behind the seating of the FL & Michigan delegates, Obama is undermining his claim to represent post-partisan politics, and he is he's putting himself at grave risk of losing not only FL & Michigan votes, but the votes of many constituencies that will see this as a major slap in the face.  

    This is not, in the end, a winning strategy for him.  

    Parent

    but... (none / 0) (#148)
    by huzzlewhat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:16:25 PM EST
    Given Sen. Obama's repeated arguments about Sen. Clinton's "high negatives," wouldn't it mean that name recognition in this case would not be beneficial?

    Parent
    His own negatives (none / 0) (#203)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:16:45 PM EST
    are in the 40s now.

    Parent
    No"Half Baked" Solution Now (5.00 / 4) (#13)
    by Missblu on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:08:04 PM EST
    Obama and his friends on the DNC rules Committee set the rules and I think aided in keeping these states in suspension, even though DNC Rules clearly stated remedies to include them. Rules are just rules for the moment apparently. His arguments were never based in the rules anyway and were not in the interest of those state's voters nor of the Democratic Party, but clearly in the fact that those delegates were expressing a greater favoritism in the country toward Senator Clinton. It is clear as can be.  Women see this and remember well how it all happened and will fight for full reinstatement. These states did not fit well on the Obama prediction chart

    Delegates Now and Then (5.00 / 5) (#24)
    by Athena on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:12:01 PM EST
    Clinton clearly lost the "time value of delegates" in the FL and MI fiascos (in the way that money has a time value).

    She lost the credibility and momentum that her wins in 2 of the larget 10 states should have given her.

    Parent

    this I do not understand. (none / 0) (#213)
    by Christy1947 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:10:06 PM EST
    My understanding is that the 50% rule was enforced in 2004 by Terry McAuliffe, now her campaign manager when Michigan wanted to do it in that year. And that Harold Ickes, one of her campaign staff was on the Rules Committee when it voted the sanctions against FlA and MI, and that he and 28 others voted for them. That the only dissenter on that committee was someone from Tampa. And that at the time her campaign leader, Mr. Ickes was voting for the bans, she was not objecting. Will one of you tell me why she was not objecting when the rule went on?

    Parent
    It's a pure cutting of FL's delegation (5.00 / 5) (#17)
    by goldberry on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:09:04 PM EST
    I'm sure that he has only the most pristine of motives in reducing their impact by half.  It has nothing at all to do with maintaining his image of inevitability.  

    Talk is cheap, do something about it now. (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by FLVoter on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:09:46 PM EST


    Talk is cheap, which (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by FlaDemFem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:21:18 PM EST
    explains why all we are going to get from Obama is talk. He won't accept anything that keeps him from getting the nomination, no matter how unfair it is to us, the FL voters. It's all about Obama, always has been. People are starting to see that. Hopefully, the SDs will too.

    Parent
    I certainly hope (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by oldpro on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:12:24 PM EST
    Josh can explain this.

    In the end (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by Edgar08 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:14:11 PM EST
    Josh being an idiot is a very small thing compared to what is happening here.


    Parent
    You're both right. (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by madamab on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:18:18 PM EST
    [Cue the pretzelification!]

    But Josh and his ilk have given Obama "progressive" creds that he may not have otherwise been able to claim.

    Had they held Obama to account in some way - any way - perhaps the shape of this primary would have been quite different.

    Parent

    Meaning? (none / 0) (#47)
    by oldpro on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:17:14 PM EST
    Exactly what is happening 'here?'

    And where's 'here?'

    I need a nap...or coffee...or both.

    Parent

    Meaning (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by Edgar08 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:23:52 PM EST
    Obama pretending he cares about Florida after they were excluded from the process.


    Parent
    If Obama were Solomon, his Baby Solution would be (5.00 / 4) (#36)
    by Ellie on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:14:42 PM EST
    ... cut the baby in half but give Clinton first pick.

    Obama's as bad as Bush if not worse.

    (These New Politics of Unity Hope and Change, are we certain we didn't just mis-hear the phrase, "You Didden Hope We Changed Didjja?")

    I'm not buying it (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by Edgar08 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:15:46 PM EST
    This is a viable solution now.  But not three months ago.

    Parent
    I know (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by rnibs on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:35:54 PM EST
    He's had plenty of time to take vacation during the primary season, but not to deal with this?

    Parent
    Obama to speak for Kennedy (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by waldenpond on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:16:53 PM EST
    at commencement.  OT sorry, it just broke on AP.  I heard Wellesley.  Please tell me Obama is not speaking at Wellesley.   YES HE IS!!!!

    This is me disgusted (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by Regency on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:19:41 PM EST
    THat's just not right.

    I'm actually nauseous about it.

    Parent

    Let's just hope (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by madamab on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:21:44 PM EST
    he refrains from using the word "sweetie" when addressing all of those women at Wellesley.

    [Sigh. Still bummed about poor ol' Ted.]

    Parent

    Me too (none / 0) (#72)
    by CST on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:28:07 PM EST
    There was an article in Newsweek about who might replace him.  The problem is, no one can really replace who he was in the senate.  Also, it makes me feel like he already died... It's hard to stay hopeful.

    Parent
    I really like Bernie Sanders... (none / 0) (#76)
    by madamab on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:29:56 PM EST
    but he is an Independent and doesn't have the standing of Ted's name or Party affiliation.

    :-(

    Parent

    They meant literally (none / 0) (#83)
    by CST on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:32:20 PM EST
    As in, who will be the new MA senator.

    Bernie Sanders is already a Sen. from VT.

    Parent

    Just as long (none / 0) (#94)
    by rnibs on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:37:23 PM EST
    as it's not Deval Patrick.

    Parent
    Barney Frank (none / 0) (#95)
    by masslib on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:38:24 PM EST
    Kennedy would like his wife (none / 0) (#194)
    by samanthasmom on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:57:22 PM EST
    to finish his term if he is unable to do it.  The practice has precedents.

    Parent
    I am completely against that practice (none / 0) (#205)
    by bridget on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:18:52 PM EST
    The senate is not a private company.

    Sonny Bono died and a few weeks later his wife joined the Prosecutors trashing Bill Clinton during the impeachment trial. Oh, the children ....

    When election time came around the district was again firmly in Repub hands and despite Dem efforts will be until who knows when .... grrrr. She didn't even debate her Dem opponent during the last election. Said her record spoke for itself and despite some media noise got away with it ... double grrr.

    Parent

    They will kneecap him. (none / 0) (#74)
    by oculus on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:29:30 PM EST
    Like Tonya Harding? (none / 0) (#82)
    by madamab on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:31:08 PM EST
    That's what we girls do! /snark

    Parent
    I think it is Wesleyan U. in Middletown Conn. (none / 0) (#158)
    by felizarte on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:26:30 PM EST
    Where Ted K.'s son studied and where his stepdaughter is enrolled.

    Parent
    Well, that is entirely different (none / 0) (#180)
    by ruffian on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:45:44 PM EST
    Never Mind.

    Parent
    Isn't that Hillary's alma mater? (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by goldberry on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:20:13 PM EST
    Is that going to go over well?  

    Parent
    Yes it is (5.00 / 3) (#60)
    by ruffian on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:23:00 PM EST
    That is just a slap in the face.  They could have gotten plenty of other people to speak.

    Parent
    Thanks A Lot (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by Athena on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:27:15 PM EST
    Shame on Wellesley.

    Parent
    Who asked Obama to speak? (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by oculus on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:34:32 PM EST
    Maybe T. Kennedy?

    Parent
    That's what the NYT says... (none / 0) (#162)
    by jackyt on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:28:25 PM EST
    It doesn't mention any Wellesley involvement in the decision. Just Obama saying "Teddy has done so much for me and this country, I'll do this for him(OWTTE)."

    Parent
    Wait a minute (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Regency on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:35:56 PM EST
    Seems like this may not be true: Press Release: 2008 Wellesley Commencement Speaker

    Faux is playing games. Don't fall for it.

    I personally think it should've been Hillary, but as an almost-Wellesley Girl I'm extremely biased.

    Parent

    That sounds much more logical (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by nycstray on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:54:59 PM EST
    Obama speaking there would be wrong in so many ways, imo.

    Parent
    More than one? (none / 0) (#159)
    by waldenpond on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:26:33 PM EST
    Many commencement ceremonies involve more than 1 speaker.  

    Thanks for the info.  I hope you are correct.  I found this insulting.

    Parent

    Slap, slap. (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by oculus on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:22:16 PM EST
    That is a disgusting cheap trick (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by Dr Molly on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:26:54 PM EST
    Haven't they already (none / 0) (#110)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:47:12 PM EST
    rubbed enough salt in the wound?

    I hope there are protests.

    Parent

    The story is... (none / 0) (#199)
    by djcny on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:11:56 PM EST
    from CNN, "Kennedy had hoped to deliver the commencement address at Wesleyan University in Middletown, Conn., Sunday, where his stepdaughter, Caroline Raclin, will be among the graduates. However, he has persuaded Sen. Barack Obama to stand in for him."

    Parent
    WOW the Obama campaign is really pushing it (none / 0) (#208)
    by bridget on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:27:16 PM EST
    incl. Kennedy who is part of it since surrogate numero uno

    I am not impressed by that decision.

    It's not helping with "la unite" at all. Au contraire.

    Parent

    Another "ditto" for Obama..snicker (none / 0) (#209)
    by FlaDemFem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:37:17 PM EST
    Hillary Clinton was the first STUDENT ever to give a commencement speech at Wellesley, in 1969. That was also noticed nationally. When Obama was nine years old. I hope everyone at Wellesley points that out to him..over and over and over. Heh.

    Parent
    God, way to lose (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Robert Oak on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:25:28 PM EST
    But trying to grab the Democratic nomination he is busy ensuring he will lose in November.  Gee, wiz, we just can't count the votes in Florida (for that means we might lose).  Now what HBO movie as well as national uproar and outrage does this remind you of?

    Clinton is damn right to stay put, and be the lady in waiting because I cannot see anyway Obama will win the general with this.  I seriously can't.

    BTW:  Who thinks Clinton should be the Senate majority leader?  I've always thought Harry Reid is absurdly corporate as well as timid and someone else needs that job.

    Me me me (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by Valhalla on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:50:14 PM EST
    I think Clinton would be a fabulous Majority leader.  One thing all the brouhaha about the primaries has overshadowed is Congress' abysmal approval ratings.  They're at 18.7% today over at RCP and have hovered around 18 for months.  Maybe she could actually light a fire under the Dem controlled Senate and get them doing something.

    Although, I haven't given up the fight for the 2nd President Clinton, not by a long shot.  But if she doesn't get the titles, then Sen. Majority leader would be excellent.  Far better than VP (not that I think Obama will offer it).

    Parent

    And (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:52:59 PM EST
    people on blogs think that John McCain is going to be easy to beat? People dislike congress even more than they dislike Bush. And the people responsible for those abysmal ratings are the same ones that are backing Obama. Does that tell you anything?

    Parent
    Despite what Harry Reid has said, (none / 0) (#123)
    by zfran on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:55:05 PM EST
    if so many in the Senate is against her now, what makes anyone think they'd support and vote for her as Majority Leader?

    Parent
    Exactly (none / 0) (#185)
    by ruffian on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:48:37 PM EST
    No doubt she would be great at it.  But she has just as good a chance at being elected President as getting those Senators to vote her leader.  Besides, if Obama wins in Nov he will want his own man - and I do mean man - in that job.

    Parent
    Heh (none / 0) (#134)
    by Steve M on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:01:28 PM EST
    Considering the outright disrespect shown to Hillary during this campaign by so many of her colleagues in the Senate, I somehow doubt they'd start marching to her tune if she were Majority Leader.

    Parent
    will Obama's talking about FL (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by oculus on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:33:02 PM EST
    delegates convince the press to stop talking about Clinton's campaign re MI/FL?

    Listening to the blogger conference call (none / 0) (#102)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:44:18 PM EST
    with Clinton campaign.  Rewired my whole brain.

    Parent
    Really interesting, I thought. (none / 0) (#105)
    by oculus on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:45:23 PM EST
    No wonder your husband is so enamoured of her.

    Parent
    FL (5.00 / 2) (#127)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:56:47 PM EST
    had a legitimate primary not a straw poll. Geez.

    Over 1.5 million Dems voted in FL (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by nycstray on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:01:14 PM EST
    you were sayin'?

    Did they have cable blackouts on prior election news? on the debates? zero access to the candidates websites? newspapers?

    Interesting Obama declined to speak to Florida (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by bridget on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:22:09 PM EST
    reporters since August acc. to the article. Well, I think they forgot that he talked to them before voting day. And he will not remind anyone of it, either.

    Still, this does not come as a suprise because he has a  tendency to avoid controversy and he also avoids the Obama press people who follow him around

    thanks to the Kool Aid he is getting away with all that like no other

    Has anyone ever asked him WHY he campaigned in Florida (that he held a press conference which he shrugged off in manner of cute candidate) since he signed the pledge?

    Bet not and Obama relies on the bias media to help him in the Fl and Mi matter. Just like they didn't touch Wright for over a year.

    btw. when he changed the subject to the voter's concern re gas, health etc. he was repeating the talking point for the day. I heard exactly the same thing from a couple Obama-supporting pundits on TV last night. Can't remember who it was anymore except they were two of the regular Obama fans and they made a big deal out of it and, of course, ridiculed Hillary for bothering everybody with that annoying MI and Florida subject. They had a good laugh about it all.

    How often have we heard from the pundits on TV and  in paper that it was just a beauty contest? Olbermann couldn't stop ridiculing Hillary for holding a victory speech after Florida.

    re name recognition.
    Obama does know how famous he is but plays coy.
    Anyone who follows foreign press knows how he is in the paper daily not just in the US. Although following the primary contest is a v. confusing matter for folks overseas I have been told. Understandable IMO. But people know Obama just as well as Hillary Clinton. Bet Americans know him just as well ;-)

    Honest to Zeus, I am actually (4.85 / 7) (#3)
    by andgarden on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:59:58 PM EST
    eating popcorn right now.

    LOL! (5.00 / 6) (#6)
    by madamab on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:03:20 PM EST
    I mean, if memory serves me, and I am old and decrepit to 12-year-old Obama bloggers, wasn't the 50% solution...THE ORIGINAL ROOL?!

    Hey, pass me some of that popcorn!

    Parent

    Ha Ha! (5.00 / 7) (#42)
    by Dr Molly on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:16:15 PM EST
    Yes, but the rule is so much more.... MEANINGFUL and INSPIRING... now that Obama has offered it himself.

    Parent
    and Transformational!!! (5.00 / 2) (#130)
    by ruffian on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:57:35 PM EST
    He is so generous to the voters! (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by Dr Molly on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:05:49 PM EST
    We should all be grateful.

    Parent
    It's after 12:00 (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by waldenpond on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:12:29 PM EST
    I've cracked a beer.    I'm sticking to developing my Clinton bona fides to the end!

    Parent
    Here ya go! (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by madamab on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:13:51 PM EST
    [passes waldenpond a shot through the Intertubez]

    Parent
    ok (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:15:04 PM EST
    it has to be domestic and you have to drink it out of the can

    Parent
    No can but (5.00 / 4) (#56)
    by waldenpond on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:21:37 PM EST
    it is only MGD (that's all I have in the house).  I have my feet up on a styrofoam cooler to balance it out though.  :)

    Parent
    I think Iron City Beer is what Hillary in PA (none / 0) (#101)
    by Mark Woods on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:43:54 PM EST
    chased her Pittsburgh boiler-maker with, if authenticity's your aim.

    Parent
    The story from Axelrod will be: (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by ruffian on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:48:40 PM EST
    Obama awoke Wednesday morning after 3 hours of sleep and reflected that even Apollo had to make tough decisions like this one.

    Parent
    Apollo come to earth says: (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by ruffian on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:54:37 PM EST
    like Sybil of Cumae, those women in FL will get their votes - but not their youth!!! Bwahahahahah!!!!

    Parent
    Soon they'll be calling Obama (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by pie on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:55:22 PM EST
    Solomon.  

    Split that baby in half, baybee!

    Wheeeeeeeeeeee!!!

    Parent

    this blog would be fun (none / 0) (#183)
    by diplomatic on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:48:21 PM EST
    if we were allowed to post some animated gifs once in a while, amiright?

    Parent
    The Constitutional Fathers (1.00 / 0) (#103)
    by DCDemocrat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:44:34 PM EST
    were more generous to the slaves than Barack Obama proposes to be to Floridians.

    If McCain choses Charlie Crist for VP he is (none / 0) (#4)
    by athyrio on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:02:45 PM EST
    automatically a winner IMO....Crist is a very popular Gov. in Florida.....I know it is off topic but thought since we are discussing Florida, it might be an point of concern for Obama folks...

    I think McCain would (5.00 / 5) (#8)
    by madamab on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:04:49 PM EST
    have to be a lot more gay-friendly than he is if he is to pick Charlie "Permanent Bachelor" Crist as his running-mate.

    Parent
    And a lot more confident of his base (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by ruffian on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:25:21 PM EST
    McCain has enough problems with the religious right as it is.  He is not picking Crist, but good for him for at least pretending to consider it.

    In my opinion, he will pick Pawlenty and we will be in paw-lenty of trouble.

    Parent

    look for the dark horse, the new repub (none / 0) (#167)
    by hellothere on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:33:40 PM EST
    governor from la to have a chance. think about it. he is first generation also. he has from what i have read done some good things in louisana. he wears cowboy boots to the office. this the sort of new and refreshing thing that voters might like. it would take away from the ongoing docudrama known as obama.

    Parent
    Crist would be extremely wise (none / 0) (#49)
    by Prabhata on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:19:23 PM EST
    Crist would take FL and would bring many gays into the fold.  SF will go for him, and that would be the first time in many years that SF would go Republican.

    Parent
    Do you think the National Party (none / 0) (#66)
    by madamab on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:25:38 PM EST
    would allow this?

    Seriously, Crist is teh ghey. I thought the Republicans were not okay with that.

    I don't see what Crist would really add anyway. He is not going to get the evangelical vote.

    My $$$ are on Hackabee.

    Parent

    Huckabee's out (none / 0) (#71)
    by waldenpond on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:27:30 PM EST
    you don't make that asinine of a joke about Obama and think you are getting the VP slot.

    Parent
    Ha! (none / 0) (#87)
    by madamab on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:33:08 PM EST
    McCain has said far worse about Obama.

    I don't think that disqualifies the Hackster.

    Parent

    I forgot about that (none / 0) (#88)
    by ruffian on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:33:50 PM EST
    Pawlenty it is.

    Parent
    Everytime Crist is in the national eye (none / 0) (#84)
    by ruffian on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:32:32 PM EST
    with McCain, the next week there are stories about him 'flirting' with women or bringing some society Republican woman to a social event. Pretty amusing. The media here goes along with it.

    Parent
    good point (none / 0) (#149)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:18:08 PM EST
    I suspect there are "people" who kept quiet for the governor but might not for the VP.


    Parent
    FL (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:47:38 PM EST
    is lost for Obama.

    Parent
    of FL is lost (and it probably is) (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:18:58 PM EST
    then so is the White House

    Parent
    Looks like the 1/2 proposal (none / 0) (#5)
    by sarissa on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:03:05 PM EST
    is going to carry the day.

    I wouldn't count on it. (5.00 / 5) (#25)
    by goldberry on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:12:07 PM EST
    His argument is transparent and extremely self-serving.  He will get no brownie points from Floridians if he thwarts their intentions by cutting their delegation.  He might have legitimately made this argument two months ago but it just looks like poor sportsmanship now.  

    Parent
    Don't bet on it (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by americanincanada on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:16:48 PM EST
    I believe Florida will be seated 'as is'.

    Parent
    Slow today, had a bad night (none / 0) (#10)
    by rilkefan on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:05:30 PM EST
    Isn't this approach - count the voters, dock the delegates - something you've been willing to accept as reasonable under the plain reading of the rules?

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:06:43 PM EST
    you are slow today.

    Did you see who my target was in this? Indeed, read my posting today to see who my targets are.

    Parent

    Are his initials... (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by madamab on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:08:56 PM EST
    Josh Marshall?

    Parent
    Question is, is it political? (none / 0) (#44)
    by rilkefan on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:16:33 PM EST
    Unless JMM says no delegates should be seated, no votes counted - and I'm not going to look, then he's just sad.  But if the question is politics vs principle, one could argue that Obama's stance is just a non-partisan take on the situation.  I think, anyway - I don't know what the precedents are if any.  I seem to recall a sensible HRC supporter calling for such an approach earlier.

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:19:33 PM EST
    If you do not care enough to read the material, why should I discuss this with you?

    Parent
    Think I've read the relevant material (none / 0) (#79)
    by rilkefan on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:30:44 PM EST
    And as far as I can tell I've presented a refutation of your argument.  I don't necessarily agree that the prima facie approach to the situation is count the voters, halve the delegates, but I believe I've seen sensible people say so, which is enough for JMM to reply, There's your principle.  Perhaps one goes on and argues that Obama in effect campaigned there and should get 0 delegates, or that the other states that moved up should be punished, and hence Obama isn't being consistent etc.; but that's not present in your post.

    Parent
    You think wrong (none / 0) (#93)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:36:23 PM EST
    You came nowhere near my argument.

    Later.

    Parent

    Opening here for some (none / 0) (#14)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:08:28 PM EST
    Biblical references and Solomon with cutting the baby in half, but someone more clever can come up with the analogy.  

    how about (none / 0) (#21)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:10:52 PM EST
    tossing both halves of the baby out with the bathwater?


    Parent
    LOL - I'm dyin' here. (none / 0) (#67)
    by ruffian on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:26:49 PM EST
    Stellaaa I know I work the cheap side o'the Street (none / 0) (#81)
    by Ellie on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:31:07 PM EST
    But I already cut into that baby. (Or, I already cut into that, Baby!)

    You know, drop by sometime for some appetizers!

    OnT: This is d0uchery is a bit much even for BO. How can his flock continue defending him on a day to day basis after, eg, months of complaining that HRC "changed her mind" once and apparently that first thing was graven on stone tablets or something?

    Parent

    BO is borrowing from Solomon's wisdom (none / 0) (#22)
    by Prabhata on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:11:24 PM EST
    but sounding like an unwise politician.

    For all of Clinton's efforts (none / 0) (#23)
    by ajain on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:11:45 PM EST
    Gov. Paterson just squashed her.
    He called her efforts desperate and called into question her Michigan argument.

    It is quite something. Why don't her supporters stay on message? Maybe they should simply avoid questions for a while.

    Link? (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by nycstray on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:14:20 PM EST
    Here it is (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by ajain on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:27:14 PM EST
    Via The Page

    Link

    Parent

    Ask and ye shall receive. (none / 0) (#73)
    by sweetthings on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:29:01 PM EST
    Link.

    "I would say at this point we're starting to see a little desperation on the part of the woman who I support and I'll support until whatever time she makes a different determination," Paterson said, adding: "I thought she was the best candidate and I thought she had the best chance of winning."

    Ouch. He thought she was the best? As in, past tense?

    Paterson is a hard-core Clinton supporter and a Superdelegate. If he's buying into the "it's over" meme, well, that's not good.

    Parent

    Actually (none / 0) (#90)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:35:15 PM EST
    that is the end of Paterson's chance to run for Governor in the next election.

    Parent
    Can you imagine a primary (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by andgarden on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:41:42 PM EST
    between Schumer, Hillary, and Cuomo? They'll work it before hand. . .

    Parent
    Might as well throw Bloomberg (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by nycstray on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:49:01 PM EST
    in the mix. He could be a Dem again by then  ;)

    Parent
    Whatever that may mean for him (none / 0) (#97)
    by ajain on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:39:22 PM EST
    In the short-term this really hurts Clinton. I felt like she way getting some headway with her argument.

    Parent
    I don't think so. (none / 0) (#99)
    by madamab on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:41:05 PM EST
    This guy is only governor by default.

    If Ed Rendell said it, that would be a different story, IMHO.

    Parent

    Yup. (none / 0) (#98)
    by madamab on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:40:23 PM EST
    Bye-bye, David. It was nice while it lasted.

    Parent
    well the only reason he is there is because (none / 0) (#156)
    by hellothere on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:23:45 PM EST
    the gov had some personal issues. he has never struck me as being the sharpest pencil on the desk. i mean the degree of personal data he put out there left me saying wth! sure cover yourself but it wasn't necessary to turn into the script for a porn novel.

    Parent
    that's what a tepid supporter sounds like (none / 0) (#166)
    by diplomatic on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:32:17 PM EST
    it ain't pretty!

    Parent
    i think he was tepid all along. (none / 0) (#171)
    by hellothere on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:37:52 PM EST
    he wants desperately to run with the big dogs. he didn't even do a good job of getting his leash off. sorry david, the application desk is closed.

    Parent
    where is the integrity? (none / 0) (#189)
    by diplomatic on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:50:58 PM EST
    Does the Democratic party have a larger share of phonies and backstabbers than the Republicans? Just asking.  I can never become a Republican, but geesh.

    Parent
    yup, that is the question for me also. (none / 0) (#191)
    by hellothere on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:52:04 PM EST
    i have been stunned and disgusted with the conduct of the dnc and so called party elders in the democratic party.

    Parent
    Thanks! (none / 0) (#116)
    by nycstray on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:49:26 PM EST
    Perhaps this has racial overtones, or not (none / 0) (#132)
    by zfran on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:59:12 PM EST
    Oh Gawd. (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by madamab on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:15:11 PM EST
    The tragedy of Eliot Spitzer's lack of self-control continues to unfold.

    Parent
    with all of spitzer's faults, i just would (none / 0) (#157)
    by hellothere on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:24:50 PM EST
    never expect something that dumb to come out of his mouth.

    Parent
    Too late of course (none / 0) (#30)
    by Edgar08 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:13:09 PM EST
    Obama08*.


    VP talks (none / 0) (#59)
    by Monda on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:22:38 PM EST
    Very OT, but didn't know where to post this.  Yesterday, McCain was holding secret VP talks.  Today, Obama is doing the same thing.  Isn't it a little "early" for that?  Here is the link:

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24774154

    (Straight from Obama's network)

    There has been talk for the last year (none / 0) (#106)
    by DCDemocrat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:45:53 PM EST
    that because of the long stretch between the conclusion of the primary process and the conventions, a prospective nominee would find it easier on herself to have a sidekick prior to the nominating convention.

    Parent
    Depends on your perspective. (none / 0) (#112)
    by sweetthings on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:48:16 PM EST
    In a normal primary, this would be about the time that the search for a VP began in earnest. These things take time, after all. So it's not early by that measure. Of course, this isn't a normal primary.

    Maybe Clinton should start hinting she's looking for a VP?

    Parent

    Obama is trying to convince everyone that he (none / 0) (#165)
    by bridget on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:31:43 PM EST
    closed the deal hoping folks will believe

    and the helpful Obama media will discuss VPs instead MI and Fl which seems much too complicated for them anyway since they haven't progressed much from repeating endlessly "But Obama's name wasn't even on the ballot." ... rolling eyes ...

    VP talk is more fun for the gossip-loving tweeties et al

    Parent

    Maybe I'm dense, but... (none / 0) (#75)
    by jackyt on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:29:37 PM EST
    My immediate interpretation of the Obama quote above is that he is advocating splitting the Florida delegates even/steven between himself and Clinton. Which is very different from giving each delegate 1/2 credit, but apportioning them according to the vote.
    Does anyone know the correct interpretation of the quote?

    That is incorrect (none / 0) (#80)
    by CST on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:31:03 PM EST
    He is suggesting seating 1/2 the delegates, split proportionally.

    Parent
    gimme some! isn't that what michelle said (none / 0) (#151)
    by hellothere on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:18:29 PM EST
    in a speech? i am paraphrasing now. i think it was up at no quarter. anyway that's the phrase that came to mind when i read obama is recommending that fl give him some delegates. good luck with that. i don't think the good citizens of florida will take too kindly to that.

    Parent
    Heh (none / 0) (#78)
    by Cal on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:30:35 PM EST
    Good one, BTD.

    I think the point that many of us have (none / 0) (#96)
    by magnetics on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:38:32 PM EST
    missed heretofore is that Obama is a frustrated standup comic.  He's working hard to make us laugh, but somehow we keep missing the joke.

    or he is Andy Kaufman (none / 0) (#168)
    by diplomatic on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:34:38 PM EST
    and is doing it to the audience on purpose.

    Parent
    Maybe he wants to (none / 0) (#192)
    by ruffian on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:52:44 PM EST
    wrestle Hillary for the nomination?

    Parent
    how about a tag team (none / 0) (#206)
    by diplomatic on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:19:25 PM EST
    Michelle/Barack vs. Bill/Hillary

    ---- _ ||| CAGE MATCH ||| _----

    LIVE! LIVE! Pay per View

    Refereed by Larry King...

    eek

    Parent

    Isn't this... (none / 0) (#104)
    by mike in dc on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:45:16 PM EST
    ...the kind of movement towards compromise on FL and MI that BTD wanted?  Obama has moved from "divide the delegations in half--the original votes won't be the basis of the apportionment" to "use the original vote in FL but apply the standard 50% penalty".  

    If one side is seen as willing to budge from its position to go "meet them more than halfway"(as Axelrod puts it), the RBC is more likely to lean towards their proposal than towards the other's "no compromises--give us everything we want" position.  

    I disagree slightly with BTD's characterization of Obama as "just another pol", in that he's a lot more talented at politics than most of them.

    This I will grant you. (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by DCDemocrat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:47:03 PM EST
    Obama is a talented politician, and he is utterly schooled in the way the art is practiced in Chicago.

    Parent
    a democratic stronghold (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:02:22 PM EST
    he is schooled in tactics that work on democrats.


    Parent
    I don't think he's (5.00 / 3) (#128)
    by rnibs on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:57:17 PM EST
    talented so much as willing to bully.  If he was truly talented, he would have been able to get what he wants without losing a lot of us along the way.

    Maybe talent in politics = bullying, but in my naivete, I always hope it's not.

    Parent

    He is talented (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by madamab on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:09:30 PM EST
    at backroom wheeling and dealing.

    His handlers are decent at framing, and great at gaming.

    Obama himself?

    He can't make his case to core Democratic voters who hate Republicans with a passion.

    He can't hold his own in a debate as soon as the questions get hostile.

    He can't figure out how to win the nomination without alienating millions of people, splitting the Party along racial lines, and trashing an extremely popular President FROM HIS OWN PARTY.

    He has made himself unelectable in the GE in a year when we should be carrying 300+ electoral votes.

    If that's talented at politics, I'd hate to see what untalented looks like.

    Parent

    Untalented... (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by mike in dc on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:12:43 PM EST
    ...is starting the race with 100 superdelegate endorsements, a large well-established fundraising base, huge name recognition, a great rep...

    ....and losing to the new guy.

    Parent

    Craven... (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by Dr Molly on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:21:03 PM EST
    ... is exploiting racial hostilities and sexist smears to fight your way to the top.

    But, then again, maybe that's a form of talent.

    Parent

    Heh (none / 0) (#170)
    by Steve M on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:35:58 PM EST
    Yep, Jesse Jackson Jr. saying "Hillary didn't cry over Katrina" was a perfect example of the Clinton campaign exploiting race.

    Try again.  Or don't.

    Parent

    I agree with you 110% (none / 0) (#173)
    by FedUpLib on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:39:49 PM EST
    Which is why I am voting for Obama.

    Parent
    untalented is turning your spouse loose (none / 0) (#161)
    by hellothere on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:28:06 PM EST
    with negative comments all the time, trying to hide a racist preacher, and in general taking a win and turning into a "gee he did what".

    Parent
    the long and short of it is obama just won't (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by hellothere on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:42:25 PM EST
    get the boomer women and all those bitters out there to vote for him. and frankly i haven't seen him personally do that much that says talented to me. he is being carried around on a sedan chair by the media, the dc insiders, and axelrod. what's to do? well what has he done?

    Parent
    The sedan chair thing is it in a nutshell (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by bridget on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:00:30 PM EST
    brilliant ;-)
    first time I heard that lol

    It would be fun to have a poll re the two bearers.

    Parent

    I will never get this "Obama is the most (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by bridget on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:53:43 PM EST
    talented politician of his time" nonsense from the Kool Aid pundits.

    After all the Obama brouhaha I had been subjected to I was looking forward to the debates and I couldn't believe what his followers were talking about. Huge disappointing hemming and hawing I heard.

    Wheeling and dealing is one thing

    but defining, articulating, and solving policy issues in clear sentences is another thing.

    Give me Hillary any time.

    And if we had not term limits Bill Clinton would still be Prez. No one speaks better than Bill. Forget Obama and his vague and pandering speeches which get quickly boring. After listening to more than one IMHO. Well, come to think of it, even while listening to the first one.

    my two cents

    Parent

    Which is why BTD supports Obama. (none / 0) (#108)
    by oculus on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:46:47 PM EST
    Well, that and "media darling" and electability.

    Parent
    ahem (none / 0) (#169)
    by diplomatic on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:35:04 PM EST
    BTD has backed away from that several times now and you know it.

    Parent
    I do know it. (none / 0) (#175)
    by oculus on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:42:18 PM EST
    I'd say "tepidly neutral" about now.

    Parent
    lol (none / 0) (#182)
    by diplomatic on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:47:23 PM EST
    Did you see Gov. Paterson's comments about Hillary?

    Now that is tepid my friend.

    Parent

    The man lacks judgment. (none / 0) (#200)
    by oculus on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:12:15 PM EST
    pop vote (none / 0) (#118)
    by DaveOinSF on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:51:30 PM EST
    I think Obama is wagering he can hang on to the pop vote lead even counting Florida (but not Michigan).  He'll probably net another 30,000 out of South Dakota/Montana, though it could be less, so let's say his Michigan and Puerto Rico-free lead is between 160 and 270,000, depending how you handle IA,NV,ME,WA.

    Puerto Rico really now the wild card.  How many votes she can net there determines the strength of the pop vote arguemnt.

    >270,000 = Hillary wins pop vote by any metric.
    >220,000 = Hillary wins pop vote if you ignore MI but include IA,NV,ME estimates and WA primary
    >180,000 = Hilary wins pop vote if you give MI's uncommited to Obama and count all four caucus estimates
    >130,000 = Hillary wins pop vote if you give MI's uncommitted to Obama, count IA,NV,ME estimates and WA primary.
    Below 130,000, Hillary begins to either require ignoring the caucus estimates, or not assigning uncommited MI votes to Obama.

    Obama's betting that Hillary won't net 270,000 votes out of Puerto Rico, so it's safe to indclude Florida.  If he counts Michigan, even takign Uncommitted votes for himself, then her threshold is about 180,000, and I think he's worried she might make it.

    If all (none / 0) (#125)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:56:10 PM EST
    she has to do is make 180,000 votes even with giving him the uncommitted in MI then she'll probably take the lead in the popular vote.

    Parent
    She have any events there? (none / 0) (#137)
    by DaveOinSF on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:04:45 PM EST
    Is he headed to PR to drum up support?  Chelsea headed to the gay beaches?  Bill doing whetever it is that Bill does?

    Parent
    I understand (none / 0) (#145)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:12:24 PM EST
    that Bill and Chelsea have both been campaigning heavily in PR for her. I've also read that they get something like 80% turnout for elections with the population being 2 million. So She could easily pick up 500,000 votes in PR alone is what I've heard.

    Parent
    San Juan (none / 0) (#201)
    by DaveOinSF on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:13:18 PM EST
    I just found out that San Juan Gay Pride is the same day as the primary (June 1).  Given that Hillary does well with the gays, I wonder if this is going to be good for her, or bad for her.

    Parent
    This is a great idea..... (none / 0) (#138)
    by miriam on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:05:15 PM EST
    providing the also-early-primary South Carolina votes are treated the same.

    The DNC needs to resolve the election problems (none / 0) (#140)
    by Newt on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:06:46 PM EST
    we face due to the caucus/popular vote nomination process, potential election fraud in states without easily audited paper trails, and the current and future effect of Republican-led state legislatures disrupting the Democratic primaries by changing their states' primary dates.

    This FL & MI mess is a great opportunity to tackle all three of the above problems.  If we re-vote by mail in MI & FL, we automatically bring both states back into compliance with DNC rules on timing of elections.  This undermines any future Republican attempts to disrupt the Dem nomination process by moving up the primary dates.  It also establishes a new direction to defeat election fraud in America.  Finally, it would creates a route for Hillary to establish that she really is more electable without giving Obamabots the chance to say she manipulated the party.  She'll actually have the votes in hand from those states in a direct head to head contest with just the two of them on the ballot.

     and pay for the cost of a mail-in election that utilizes equipment we already have based on Oregon's successful 100% mail-in process that undermines electronic fraud by establishing an audit trail even in states that used HAVA to undermine that concept.  We've already got the infrastructure and policies in place, based on Oregon's successful 100% mail-in model.  We've got the voter rolls in both MI and FL, and enough money to accomplish it before the convention since it's much cheaper to do a mail-in than try to repeat the vote through the two states' election process.

    This is the DNC's chance to pull the rug out from under the Repub's manipulations, and to establish a new direction to defeat election fraud in America.  

    This is beneath you, BTD (none / 0) (#142)
    by digdugboy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:08:38 PM EST
    It's petty and mean-spirited.

    Which part? (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:12:58 PM EST
    The part where you seem to be finding it (none / 0) (#179)
    by digdugboy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:45:36 PM EST
    impossible to disagree with somebody without resorting to ridicule of the person with whom you disagree. The rhetoric of ridicule and bitterness permeates your writing these days. I have some difficulty believing that you would talk to Josh's face the way you speak about him here. If you did, it would certainly qualify as boorish behavior.

    Parent
    Which person was I disagereeing with? (none / 0) (#184)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:48:28 PM EST
    Oh BTW (none / 0) (#186)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:49:10 PM EST
    I would speak to him or you exactly the same way to your face.

    Parent
    Sure you would (none / 0) (#207)
    by digdugboy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:22:00 PM EST
    How many times have we all seen somebody make that unverifiable pronouncement?

    Parent
    Because he couldn't take his name off of Florida. (none / 0) (#160)
    by FedUpLib on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:26:38 PM EST
    Posted by BTD on Talk Left
    Jan 25 2008

    "But of course the rules can not require this for to take their names off the Florida ballot they have to drop out of the race entirely under Florida law. So much for that "rule." More . . ."

    BTD was trying to say that Edwards and Obama were playing Politics back then too, but I am sure he won't mind if I borrow a factoid or two.


    And what happened... (none / 0) (#163)
    by FedUpLib on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:29:41 PM EST
    To the post I was defending?  All of a sudden it was gone and I couldn't answer.

    Parent
    Did you Seriously... (none / 0) (#177)
    by FedUpLib on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:43:10 PM EST
    Censor me for the post that was 90% QUOTING Hillary?

    Really, is that how this site is run?

    Parent

    BTD (none / 0) (#172)
    by s5 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:39:32 PM EST
    Didn't you propose exactly this solution a month or two back?

    It's a reasonable compromise, and like I've been saying all along, it should have been the penalty from the beginning, instead of leaving things in limbo this whole time. It would have far better for everyone to know from the beginning that the delegates would get cut in half in comparison to spending 5 months worrying about whether or not the votes would count.

    It's pretty hard to justify no penalty for states that violate the rules, just like it's hard to justify cutting their votes entirely. This leads to the obvious (and easy) solution of a 50% penalty. Indeed, this penalty should have been set before the outcome of the FL election was known. Now we're stuck with a weird stalemate where both candidates will be seen as advocating for the comparison that suits them best.

    edit (none / 0) (#174)
    by s5 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:40:39 PM EST
    "advocating for the comparison" should be "advocating for the compromise"

    Parent
    I think (none / 0) (#187)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:49:43 PM EST
    we all can agree that Dean and Brazille totally botched it. And their botching may certainly cause us to lose in Nov.

    At this point I think they should just reinstate all the delegates to their full standing in retribution for botching it in the first place. Voters in FL are so mad that it'll be the only way they'll be satisfied.

    Parent

    Not exactly (none / 0) (#188)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:50:32 PM EST
    In February I propose seating half of the delegates like this and having a revote for the other half.

    I am not criticizing Obama for this proposal if you are wondering.

    Parent

    Gotcha (none / 0) (#210)
    by s5 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:39:15 PM EST
    I was thinking about this today. Now that the popular vote is in the spotlight, I'm wondering if a revote in MI will be back on the table on May 31st. It's not possible that Obama had zero supporters at the polls in Michigan, and a revote would certainly settle that question. It's one of those compromises that would help both sides and add clarity to this freakshow of a process.

    Parent
    Half the delegates is obviously the fix (none / 0) (#197)
    by Exeter on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:00:54 PM EST
    Donna Brazille has been alluding to this and...surprise, surprise, Obama is now saying this.

    Gee...that's funny..... (none / 0) (#198)
    by Laureola on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:02:49 PM EST
    I could swear that I posted a legitimate comment with a contrary opinion......

    Where couild it have gone?

    Hmm...same thing happened to me (none / 0) (#204)
    by FedUpLib on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:17:42 PM EST
    I swear I was reading a site a fewe weeks ago that complained about this kind of thing going on over at Kos.

    It appears that the definition of Troll isn't called out because:

    Troll=anyone posting valid points against Hillary.

    Color me shocked.

    Parent

    Lets talk Popular Vote!!! (none / 0) (#214)
    by FedUpLib on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:13:09 PM EST
    Then we can start this all over again because there are 4 entire states that don't even report popular vote...not to mention the fact that a popular vote is inherently biased towards primary states.

    Screw it, that is too much work.  While we are at it, lets just throw out all of the caucus states.  

    Sound good?

    Or how about this, lets just go back to the opinion polls from Fall of last year and go off of those.  All of the voting has obviously been scewed because of what Barack Hussein Obama did to those poor folks in Michigan and Florida.

    THE RULES AT THE TIME SAID MI AND FL DO NOT COUNT.  Hillary agreed to the rules and said so several times...before she started losing.

    An election where only one name is on the ballot, or in a place you aren't allowed to campaign IS NOT VALID!  Period.  End of story.