How to Thwart Hillary's "Evil" Plan On FL/MI

Ezra Klein joins the legion of ridiculous Obama bloggers with this gem:

[Clinton's] now pursuing a political strategy meant to defeat Obama and ensure the party regrets his nomination. She will do this by convincing voters in Florida and Michigan that his campaign has wronged them and should be severely punished. It's an attempt to poison the well, to deny his campaign 44 electoral votes, or about 1/6th the total needed to win.

Suppose you were silly and stupid enough to actually believe that [More..]

(I have to believe Ezra is just in a bout of temporary insanity), as an Obama supporter what would you suggest Obama do in these circumstances? Ezra says Obama has won already. So how to thwart "the evil woman?" It's obvious isn't it? COUNT THE VOTES AND SEAT THE DELEGATES in Florida and Michigan!! That would thwart her evil scheme wouldn't it? I tell you, some of these Obama bloggers are just insane now.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

Comments closed and off topic comments all deleted.

< FL Delegates Sue DNC Over Delegate Strip | TX Appeals Court Invalidates Seizure of Children at Polygamist Compound >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Wow... (5.00 / 5) (#1)
    by kredwyn on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:13:19 PM EST
    She's amazing...I never knew that she was so evil.

    All of that wandering around suggesting that Dems should get behind the nominee after the nominee has been decided in August must just be a smoke screen for her evil, nefarious, evil...plan.

    You have to be careful.... (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by jerry on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:29:25 PM EST
    I heard there are witnesses that saw her rip out Vince Foster's heart straight from his chest, and show it to him, and watched him die.  (She made a nice chopped liver with it later, and fed it to her minion George Stephanopolis!)

    With a fava beans and a nice chianti (5.00 / 1) (#209)
    by ruffian on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:59:21 PM EST
    Honestly, Don't You Think If Hillary Is So Evil (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:36:44 PM EST
    and powerful as some like to portray her, that she could just declare herself president?  Too many bloggers and msm members are just a big waste of space.

    I don't think that would work. (5.00 / 0) (#114)
    by jerry on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:54:35 PM EST
    November 4th is not a solstice, Chelsea is (presumably) not a virgin, the specific newt that is needed has been extinct for 130 years....

    I honestly don't think there is anyway that Clinton could just announce she is the President, not this year anyway.  But in 2012!


    in a way - it's funny (5.00 / 3) (#144)
    by Josey on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:13:12 PM EST
    The Obamamites rail about the Big and Powerful "Clinton machine" and portray Obama as a poor little "victim" and "outsider" - while in reality Obama was always backed by the elite Washington establishment and DC media - the ones they railed about prior to 2007.
    Obamamites support a Centrist candidate to the right of Hillary on most issues. The media fooled Bushies too.

    One of the many paradoxes (5.00 / 1) (#213)
    by ruffian on Thu May 22, 2008 at 08:02:04 PM EST
    of this election.  

    I have been thinking of who I want to write the definitive book about it all. I'm sure there will be many books, and most of them will be garbage.  But I want one written by someone extremely smart and insightful - not the usual hack. Maybe Taylor Branch.


    One Has To Understand Exactly (5.00 / 2) (#181)
    by talex on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:42:11 PM EST
    where they are coming from.

    Remember that Obama had very little support in the blogosphere before Edwards dropped out in January. Edwards had some good points about him true. But he was almost as much the anti-Clinton as anything else. When he drooped out the big  Edwards contingent joined with the smaller Obama contingent and the online Obama movement was born.

    The thing to understand here is that Obama is more the anti=Clinton candidate than anything else. As we know there are a lot of Obama supporters that don't even know what he is about. They just think he is kool and he is not Clinton.

    On the pro-Obama blogs how many post do you see talking about Obama strengths as a Progressive? Not many. Most to the Obamabot posts are pure Clinton hatred.

    So a lot of those people are not really for Obama, they are against Clinton. But when you point out Clinton's Progressive bonifides what do you get? Crickets.

    You see Clinton is a woman! Clinton voted for the AUMF but not for war as her floor speech made clear and put on record - Again crickets. Clinton is a Clinton! And if you are Chris Bowers Clinton doesn't represent 'generational change'! Poor aging Cris trying to hang on to his youth. And on and on.

    So there are many reasons people are for Obama - but it is not because Obama is Obama. It is because he is not Clinton.

    Oh and did I mention Clinton has Experience! Sin of sins.


    Edwards "drooped out." (5.00 / 1) (#216)
    by Boston Boomer on Thu May 22, 2008 at 08:02:59 PM EST
    That is one serious Freudian slip.

    On Daily Kos ... (5.00 / 1) (#227)
    by Cassius Chaerea on Thu May 22, 2008 at 08:14:45 PM EST
    the Obamaites were acting just as obnoxiously towards the Edwards supporters then as they are to the Clinton supporters now - rudeness, slander, attempts to force them off the site. And a large part of the Edwards supporters there did not join the Obama campaign; they're sitting out the primary and waiting for the general election. EENRblog is an example of that group.

    Implicitly, Ezra and company are (5.00 / 5) (#2)
    by MarkL on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:13:34 PM EST
    agreeing that Obama's candidacy is not legitimate. Pretty sad. And I thought boy bloggers were smarter than girl bloggers.

    Costs you nothing, gains you everything (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by DaveOinSF on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:13:54 PM EST
    I really don't understand Obama's purpose here.  He's already won.  It will cost him nothing to seat the delegates.  Yet it will go a long way to defusing the acrimony.  I don't understand what he has to gain by refusing, other than being able to say he didn't give in to that woman...

    Oh wait...

    Surely a big...strong...man (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Fabian on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:16:18 PM EST
    like Obama has nothing to prove!

    He'd never let a mere woman get the best of him.

    Gender stereotypes cut both ways.


    Oh wait (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:16:21 PM EST
    he hasn't won yet has he? No matter how he tries the Bush strategy even his own supporters apparently don't buy it. LOL.

    He Has NOT Won. (n/t) (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by creeper on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:50:13 PM EST
    the purpose (none / 0) (#164)
    by christinep on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:31:36 PM EST
    Of course, noone has won anything until he/she is the last person standing and/or nominated officially at the convention. Somehow--in this day and age--everyone takes as given that which clearly isn't. The odds clearly favor Obama...but, odds favored past candidates as late as this. Odd favor football teams and lots of other things.  No, I'm not dreaming. I've just seen it and lots stranger. Obama knows that too.

    I think you should check (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by cawaltz on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:14:04 PM EST
    for frontal lobotomy scars.There seems to be some severe logic and reason gaps in Obama land.

    CDS (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by joanneleon on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:36:53 PM EST
    It's real.  

    I tell you, Clinton Derangement Syndrome needs to be added to the DSM.


    I think (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:14:20 PM EST
    more and more they know they've backed a losing horse. Otherwise they wouldn't care about what Hillary does or does not do. Are these bloggers so dumb as to think that these voters aren't enraged already about what the DNC has done?

    Are they now conceding that FL and MI are important swing states?

    The hysterial is astounding but I'm loving it.

    I'm afraid that they're just having a (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by jpete on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:24:04 PM EST
    very good time.  It's like seeing the worst of human impulses come out in little kids as they bully someone.

    Let me add, since I missed the thread on sexism and Hillary, that the good folks at feministphilosophers.wordpress.com have been objecting since early last fall to the ugliness of the sexist attacks on Hillary.



    I think (5.00 / 4) (#32)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:26:49 PM EST
    you're onto something with the bully thing. Have you though that they are bullies who run away scared when someone actually stands up to them? It seems they are unable to bully Hillary into doing what they want, she is standing up and doing the right thing here hence the hysteria.

    Right. It's not rational. Tell me the (none / 0) (#12)
    by MarkL on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:18:21 PM EST
    O-list blogger who sounds confident of victory in November today, compared to how he sounded 4 months ago. I can't think of one.

    They (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:20:44 PM EST
    saw those q pac polls and are having a heart attack. Of course, I'm sure in their mind it's hillary's fault that Obama is doing so poorly in those states. LOL. They are totally blind to Obama's numerous electoral faults. Obama will lose because of Obama nothing Hillary has done.

    The latest meme (5.00 / 5) (#24)
    by Steve M on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:24:27 PM EST
    is that Clinton supporters are all lying to pollsters about whether they would vote for Obama, in order to bolster Clinton's electability argument.

    Meanwhile the Obama supporters are giving Clinton a "unity boost" by telling pollsters "sure, I'd vote for her," so determined are they to make nice.

    I am not kidding that this is the new talking point.  I have probably seen it 100 different times today.


    Well (none / 0) (#39)
    by DaveOinSF on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:28:14 PM EST
    Well, I buy the side that some Obama supporters are giving Clinton a unity boost, and that Obama's poll problems lie with Clinton voters saying they'll vote for McCain.  The problem I have with the meme is that the Clinton supporters aren't lying....

    If I Am Ever Polled, Trust Me, I Won't Lie (none / 0) (#73)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:37:51 PM EST
    Me too Plus six (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by felizarte on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:28:09 PM EST
    But no matter what, I am re-registering as an independent.  I'll have a better chance of getting polled that way.

    Oooh (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by DaveOinSF on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:49:37 PM EST
    Ooh and maybe you'll get invited to a "focus group"!  Only if you say you're undecided though...

    The idiocy (none / 0) (#76)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:38:10 PM EST
    never ends does it? The fact is that Clinton voters are much more in the center and likely to swing to McCain. I guess reason escapes them.

    I'm not to the center. (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by chancellor on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:05:18 PM EST
    I'm pretty liberal. I just want to vote for the most qualified candidate, and that's Hillary. What I won't do is vote for a totally unqualified candidate. Period.

    The Clinton supporters (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by jen on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:07:33 PM EST
    I know are way more left than center, and see Obama as a centrist. Clinton is a centrist as well, but left of center, and left of Obama.

    They aren't blind to his faults (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:36:43 PM EST
    which is exactly why they need to demonize Hillary.

    And, the people behind this are okay with the idea of this completely inept choice possibly becoming the leader of the free world.

    My chin is permanently bruised from all the jaw dropping moments.


    What reason (none / 0) (#175)
    by christinep on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:39:37 PM EST
    Why do you think that Dean has acted the way he has? Talk about syndromes: Is he acting out from four years ago now that he is "in charge" of the DNC? Is it just part of the old split dating to 1972? Etc. He seemed to be such a smart and honorable man. Even if he assumed that this would have been resolved long ago, he would have to have known a few months back that the dilemma would not disappear. Why would he appear to use his influence and position to act in such an abjectly back-of-the-hand way toward Florida and Michigan? (I assume most know that he differentiated here among these states and also "violators" Iowa, NH, and S.Carolina.)  Four years ago, I supported Dean with effort and money and loyalty.  I am sincere when I ask: Has he changed or did I miss something? To what end?

    I think (3.50 / 2) (#194)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:47:27 PM EST
    we've all been fooled into thinking that the Dem party represents us. It doesn't. The least they could do is put up an electable candidate which they can't even seem to do that. We'll hear the whole sordid story I imagine in Nov. after the general election.

    They should throw water on her (5.00 / 6) (#6)
    by myiq2xu on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:15:41 PM EST
    To make her melt.

    I saw that in a movie.

    somewhere someone is sitting (5.00 / 5) (#10)
    by kredwyn on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:17:19 PM EST
    at his computer and wondering "Would that really work?"

    Someone, Somewhere (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by DaveOinSF on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:23:43 PM EST
    I think that would be Andrew Sullivan in New York (or is he in Provincetown these days?)

    Not warm enough yet for his preferred attire (none / 0) (#137)
    by samanthasmom on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:08:53 PM EST
    LOL!! (none / 0) (#168)
    by proudliberaldem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:34:17 PM EST
    rueful laughter

    Jeffrey Toobin on Lou Dobbs tonight (5.00 / 4) (#11)
    by zfran on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:17:41 PM EST
    said he thought Florida is Obama's problem..Obama is the one ahead, he proports to be a great leader and able to bring people together..sorry, no deal..lol

    Toobin is not afraid... (none / 0) (#25)
    by citizen53 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:24:41 PM EST
    to criticize either side.

    He was the only one to say that the sexism charges are accurate, when the others were calling Clinton a victim.


    He was sipping kool-aid (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by waldenpond on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:35:59 PM EST
    for awhile there.  I couldn't watch him anymore.  I think he had to to get air time, but it seems he's finally snapped.  Who knows how much time he'll be on with Wolf, but Lou will have him on for the legal/political issues.

    Toobin was on the (none / 0) (#77)
    by zfran on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:38:11 PM EST
    comment about a legal issue. The filing by Florida against the DNC.

    said Obama needs to be a leader (none / 0) (#49)
    by DandyTIger on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:30:34 PM EST
    and make a deal and count the votes. I was stunned he said that. He must be evil now too I guess. :-)

    Obama (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:40:30 PM EST
    A leader? Can't see that happening anytime soon.

    Has he shown any evidence whatsoever ... (5.00 / 2) (#229)
    by Cassius Chaerea on Thu May 22, 2008 at 08:19:42 PM EST
    of the leadership and conciliatory skills that his supporters attribute to him?


    Look at how well he's handled this primary campaign. After all, he's a uniter, not a divider.


    His campaign has wronged them (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by Edgar08 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:18:51 PM EST
    And he SHOULD be punished.

    She "will do" this? (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by lilburro on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:18:56 PM EST
    So she...hasn't done it.  

    Also, is she actually calling for the Obama campaign to be punished?  I haven't heard anything of that nature.  There's no way the Obama campaign could be punished anyway.  What would she do?  What could anyone do?  Issue every vehicle involved with the campaign a speeding ticket?


    I guess she could "punish" him (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by zfran on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:20:17 PM EST
    by actually letting the votes be counted, like they should!!

    Ezra Klein = Maureen Dowd? (none / 0) (#62)
    by lilburro on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:34:05 PM EST
    But I thought Barack was supposed to punish Hillary...

    The bane of the Internet (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by citizen53 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:22:04 PM EST
    Too many people posing as experts, passing off opinion as fact, treating rumors as gospel, and speculation run amok.

    With all it's promise, the internet, added to the 24 hour news cycle, has, politically speaking, arguably taken us backwards in terms of the way we choose our leaders.

    One point in favor of the net (5.00 / 3) (#107)
    by Molly Pitcher on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:50:48 PM EST
    and the blogs.  It has given me a second career trying to teach 1) history 2) geography 3 English grammar 4 English rhetoric.  And also, the lost art of listening and reading and reporting (unheard of) without inserting your own bias.

    The glass is 1/2 full (none / 0) (#130)
    by citizen53 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:05:27 PM EST
    Good comment.

    Yeah, no kidding. (none / 0) (#27)
    by MarkL on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:25:01 PM EST
    Actually the blogosphere elite crystallized rather rapidly, IMO. It's very hard for a new person to get  recognition. Digby went from a commenter on atrios to a top blogger. When does that happen anymore?
    My point is that what's at the top is the cream of a small crop. Some of them are superb. Others? Hmmm

    What is rumor? (none / 0) (#63)
    by zfran on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:34:38 PM EST
    What isn't true?

    Certainly not evil (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by flyerhawk on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:24:15 PM EST
    But comparing the situation in Florida to Zimbabwe?  Come on.  

    Obama has already offered a solution to Florida.  I realize that Clinton supporters tend to think that Obama is the only obstacle to seating the delegates as is but the DNC are the ones that imposed the penalty and they are the ones who can lift it.  And it seems unlikely that they will capitulate.  

    More like Bataan, perhaps. ? (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by MarkL on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:25:22 PM EST
    Heh (none / 0) (#43)
    by Steve M on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:29:04 PM EST
    Winning comeback for sure.

    Oooohhh (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:27:52 PM EST
    We all know that Obama NEVER EVER EVER made such a statement.

    I mean for crissakes, the insanity of the Obama blogs on this is an embarrassment.

    Let me put it this way, not even YOU would ever write anything that silly.

    (That's what they call a backhanded compliment.)


    The Obama blogs... (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by citizen53 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:33:23 PM EST
    embarrass themselves virtually every day.

    Dare to disagree and watch the venom.

    If this is what the politics of hope and unity is about, no thank you.


    I just can't these guys serious (none / 0) (#91)
    by bridget on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:44:53 PM EST
    but some of them do have a blowhorn and are part of the nat. discourse on TV -
    Klein is only 23 yrs old - I googled
    So he was born when Katarina Witt won her gold medal lol ;-)

    I remember seeing him once on msnbc and he looked like a college student ... and he is just about

    Many of these young Obamabloggers know that aligning themselves w. the Obama media now will ensure valuable $$$ punditry time forever. It's career making time.

    yesterday Finemann and Alter, today and tom Klein and friends.


    If you mean already, was that today? (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by lilburro on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:33:08 PM EST
    The count the votes, seat 50% solution?  It took him literally more than 2 months to think of THAT?

    of following the original DNC rules?

    Wow, it took him a long time, but it sure was worth it.


    She did not (none / 0) (#94)
    by Molly Pitcher on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:45:47 PM EST
    compare Florida and Zimbabwe.  Jeeze, Louise!  She said the situation in Zimbabwe should remind us that casting a vote that counts is an American right, supposedly.  Do not lightly discount people's votes ANYWHERE.

    I think they figured it out on their own (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by dianem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:25:01 PM EST
    Of course, the idea that Florida and Michigan residents resent not having their votes counted without any held from Clinton would not fit into the "it's all Clinton's fault" meme that is so popular in the Obama camp.

    I wonder how many of his supporter's have thought through the implications of her dropping out and him still not winning the remaining states?

    Every time I read hear somebody claim that Clinton feels entitled to the nomination I want to scream - she's working her ass off while he calls for her to drop out and grant him his right as the nominee.

    Not to be too contrary ... (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by anydemwilldo on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:26:30 PM EST
    Not to be too contrary, and I'd be happy to seat the Florida delegation more or less as is.  But do folks here really see the idea of seating a bunch of Michigan delegates based on an unbelievably flawed election (only two candidates on the ballot) as representative of the will of the voters in Michigan?  I mean, I've been pretty neutral all the way through the primary, finally voting for Obama (in Oregon) out of a desire to get this process over with.  So sure: at this point I have an interest in a Clinton concession even if I'd be happy with a Clinton presidency.

    All that being said, it seems to me that there's a whole lot of kool-aid being drunk here if people really think that the "fair" way to resolve this election is to pretend that zero (zero!) Michigan voters support an Obama candidacy...  That can't be right, can it?

    It was the will of OBAMA that he not (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by MarkL on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:27:43 PM EST
    get any votes in MI. It was a political calculation, based on the expectation of doing quite poorly in MI at a critical early juncture.

    But... (2.00 / 0) (#64)
    by anydemwilldo on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:34:51 PM EST
    But... we don't have elections to reflect the will of the candidates.  It's about the will of the people.  The process failed us this time, sure.  But (and I'm sure I'm stepping into a flame war here: this will be my last post), you can't really be serious that the choice by the Obama campaign (and Dodd, and Biden, and Edwards, and the DNC, and everyone but Clinton and Kucinich) means that voters (voters!) who support those candidates suddenly "don't count".

    Everyone admits that the process sucked.  The goal at this point is coming up with a delegate allocation that at least approximately reflects the will of the Michigan voters.  How can "100% to Clinton" possibly be the right choice?  I just can't see how people are making that argument with a straight face.


    LOL.. so wrong. A candidate who takes his (5.00 / 3) (#69)
    by MarkL on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:36:40 PM EST
    name off the ballot is saying he doesn't want votes. In this country, we call it CHEATING to give him votes he did not ask for and did not get.

    Sort of. (none / 0) (#95)
    by anydemwilldo on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:46:22 PM EST
    Well, sure, I guess.  But it's also "cheating" to hold an election in contravention of party rules.  Which "cheating" is worse?  At this point, who cares?

    The question in my mind is how best to represent the will of the Michigan democratic voters.  Your answer to that seems to be "those who voted for Clinton count, those who wanted to vote for someone else don't".  Sorry, but I see that as unfair and unjust (and, at this point, unhelpful as all it's going to do is prolong an already contentious election, c.f. everything I've read at talkleft.com over the past few weeks).


    Remember (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by lilburro on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:50:37 PM EST
    the election that happened was a real election - with dozens of other offices available for people to vote on.  It's not like MI or FL went crazy and made a special election for this out of spite.  

    I wonder of all those who voted (none / 0) (#110)
    by zfran on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:52:19 PM EST
    in Fla, how many undervotes there were with no presidential vote cast?

    I don't know (none / 0) (#232)
    by MichaelGale on Thu May 22, 2008 at 08:52:53 PM EST
    but with the largest turnout in history of Florida with over 1.7 million votes cast...probably three?

    Im going to ask you (5.00 / 4) (#79)
    by cawaltz on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:39:16 PM EST
    the same thing I ask everyone else. Why is it that Obama should get the benefits of coming off that ballot in IA (and he did) and not have to deal with the consequences of it in MI? Why is it that Hillary should have to cede votes she EARNED there by staying on the ballot(and it cost her in IA)to Obama by splitting it 50-50 as the Obama camp has put out there?

    NOT 100% to Clinton! (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by Molly Pitcher on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:42:31 PM EST
    Read!  Clinton gets her delegates, the others are seated to vote the way they want to.

    Because if you read BTDs posts (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by waldenpond on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:45:19 PM EST
    He believes Obama has the nomination and BTD has pivoted to the GE.  If Obama has the nom, the decision to count/seat MI and FL will have no impact on the outcome of the nomination.  Obama (too late in my opinion) would garner good will, and could have demonstrated leadership by getting in front of this.

    So with a straight face, looking at BTDs 'media darling as electability' theory, Obama should stand up and show some backbone on something/anything.  Might just help him with the GE.


    You voted to get it over with!?! (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:49:37 PM EST
    But... we don't have elections to reflect the will of the candidates.  It's about the will of the people.  The process failed us this time, sure.

    When the voters cast their vote just to get the process over with, rather than the one most likely to repair the severe damage done over the past 2 administrations, it's not about the will of anything.


    Look (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by Steve M on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:30:58 PM EST
    In the real world Michigan has already chosen the delegates they want to represent them at the convention.

    The "uncommitted" delegates are mostly Obama supporters.  He'll get plenty of support from that delegation.

    The bottom line is that if Obama already has the nomination locked up, which he certainly appears to, there is no reason to fight any of these battles.  Not even if he's 100% right.  Just take whatever deal is offered, and maximize your chances in November by so doing.


    The evil plan must be thwarted at all costs (5.00 / 4) (#54)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:32:17 PM EST
    including the Presidency.

    Yes (5.00 / 4) (#65)
    by Steve M on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:35:25 PM EST
    At some point the grownups need to assert control over the people who believe the entire purpose of this campaign is the destruction of Hillary Clinton.

    What grownups? (none / 0) (#119)
    by Coral on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:59:55 PM EST
    Where are they? Are there any in the Obama camp, or in the Party who have enough authority/respect to get people's attention?

    Well (none / 0) (#138)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:09:34 PM EST
    they are there in the Clinton campaign and Hillary is one but they want to run those grownups off and let the inmates run the assylum.

    Has it (5.00 / 3) (#88)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:44:04 PM EST
    occurred to you that Obama, his campaign or his supporters haven't a clue about winning a general election? They have no general election strategy. It's been obvious to me for quite a while, since NH as a matter of fact. They think that the whole country is like the south side of chicago.

    No GE stategy...really (5.00 / 0) (#155)
    by 1jane on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:23:53 PM EST
     I guess that's why Obama is visiting purple states, taking on McCain at every turn and why his entire team across the country is being reassigned to different states for the GE. The plans for the GE have been in the can for months and months ready to go at the push of a button..and that button was pushed long before the Oregon primary.

    He's (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:36:32 PM EST
    lost the purple states. And he's losing the swing states against McCain. Pretty obvious to me that's a poor general election strategy.

    And his (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:39:32 PM EST
    plan as reported in the NYT is terrible. He plans to register more black voters to offset the loss of white voters. Does he not realize that he will never be able to do that? He's polling at 35% here in GA so about all he is going to get is the AA vote. He plans to give speeches. He doesn't plan to get white working class voters, he has written them off. He simply plans to tell people to vote for him because he's not John McCain. Bad, bad strategy. We aren't having a national caucus.

    better double check (none / 0) (#195)
    by english teacher on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:49:11 PM EST
    and make sure he hit the right button this time.  you know he has a history with pushing buttons...

    Odd you say this... (none / 0) (#208)
    by NvlAv8r on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:59:20 PM EST
    Since it wasn't his camp that ignored the small states and states with caucases, it wasn't his camp that thought they would have it wrapped up after Super Tuesday, and it wasn't her camp that didn't realize that the primaries weren't a winner-take-all system.

    His team has taken an underdog, under-financed, first term African American Senator and brought him pretty far.


    under-financed? (none / 0) (#220)
    by lilburro on Thu May 22, 2008 at 08:04:38 PM EST
    let me guess, you've never made a post taunting and touting how much money Obama has raised.

    Exactly. Seat the current slate of (none / 0) (#61)
    by MarkL on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:34:01 PM EST
    delegates, but list the non-Hillary ones as "uncommitted".

    Then they can vote (none / 0) (#82)
    by Molly Pitcher on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:40:46 PM EST
    their own decision as to Clinton or Obama.  Seems fair enough to me, unless Obama thinks he has lost ground in MI.  Of course--it means their votes won't be known until the convention, but what is wrong with that?

    Obama has already won (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:44:43 PM EST
    most of the Michigan uncommitteds.

    It is basically 73-55 out of Michigan already.

    Clinton nets about 60 PDs out of MI and FL.

    It will not win it for her.

    Obama should just put this to bed.


    He wont' (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:54:19 PM EST
    because it legitimizes the votes. And she's likely to come out ahead in the popular vote. Do you see where I'm coming from here. He wants to try to deligitimize the votes of those two states. There will be no leadership on this issue. Obama will do nothing about these states until Hillary no longer is in the race. However, if he does this, he could force the nomination to be made at the convention in August. How do you like them apples?

    Oh haven't you heard.. (none / 0) (#86)
    by zfran on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:43:11 PM EST
    they all will vote for him, even MI and FLA because he is "the one." He is so 'the one' he's already looking for a running mate?

    The playing field was equal (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Evie on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:50:28 PM EST
    All the candidates could have put their name on the ballot.

    Obama deprived his supporters in MI of the choice of voting for him. Obama's choice should not be used to penalize Hillary supporters and Dodd supporters and Gravel supporters, etc., of their votes.

    Isn't that the argument? Obama supporters didn't get a chance to vote for their preferred candidate, so we should disenfranchise ALL other voters for something OBAMA chose to do.


    Not to have a little comon sense (none / 0) (#44)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:29:20 PM EST
    but do you give a flyinf f((k about winning in November?

    Or are the TULZ what you REALLY care about? I am sick of this nonsense. Already.


    I don't know how old you are BTD (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by thereyougo on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:28:00 PM EST
    but the blogs are populated by 30 something year olds who haven't lived long enough to have the maturity to express credible opinions on some issues  namely this one; to allow Hillary to question and challenge the status quo and at least allow the process to proceed to the fullest extent.

    Its like the impatience of youth that these rules were in place before they were born but now they want to move on and get over it. Please. The fight for civil rights wasn't an overnight phenomenon and voting rights too. But they didn't live through that, so it doesn't matter anymore. Never mind opposing views, the bedrock of democracy.

    I'm getting discouraged by this type of commentary from the blogging community such that I doubt they will  make a difference in the next election cycle. And it will be their own fault. They've become too shrill cancelling each other out, except TL of course (-:

    The READERS of the blogs are (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by MarkL on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:37:52 PM EST
    highly educated and older.

    youth etc. (none / 0) (#231)
    by christinep on Thu May 22, 2008 at 08:26:26 PM EST
    Thereyougo: Thank you. My friends and I have muttered it; you said it.  History is fascinating. And, it does extend back more than 4 years or even more than the 90s. Funny how when we seemingly have lots of time & life, we are in such a rush and we want to redo everything so that it subscribes to what our peers want...me too. I don't know that I'm wiser now, but definitely older. Now, I finally feel that I can wait a bit and watch and see it play out.

    I have only one thing to say to Ezra Klein (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by FlaDemFem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:28:22 PM EST

    If we in Florida do not like Obama and his stance on our primary votes, he has only himself to blame. HE took the stance we are blaming him for. Now he wants to make nice and get our votes in the GE??? I DON'T THINK SO!!!

    If Barack Obama wants Florida's votes in the GE, he will have to beg to have our delegates seated, and voting, at the convention. Nothing less will be enough. We are way past the "take our punishment" stage, we are into the "who the hell are you creeps to disenfranchise us??" stage. Obama started this fight, and Florida will finish it. And him.

    I am writing in Hillary. Not sure if others will as well, they say they will, but Obama can count on the men of the black community, and some rich guilt-tripped types, but that's it. And that's not enough to carry the state. Not by a long shot.

    To quote my beloved Grandad, (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by suki on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:29:35 PM EST
    "He's just sailed clean over the edge"
    Those poor voters in Florida and Michigan were just clueless until Hillary told them how pi##ed off they should be.

    There is an element of truth in that (none / 0) (#226)
    by ruffian on Thu May 22, 2008 at 08:14:28 PM EST
    She had the foresight to raise the issue in January and give people in FL and MI the hope that there was still a chance to make their votes count.  Most Fl voters had pretty much given up after the lawsuit was thrown out, until she told us all to vote anyway and she would find a way to do it.

    Contrast that with Obama in MI taking his name off the ballot.


    Nov 4 will be day of Doom for Dems (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by Sunshine on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:31:07 PM EST
    How do they expect to win in Nov., they are losing the womens vote, they are losing MI and FL vote, looks like they have lost the blue collar vote, the jewish people are a little skiddish....  I hear they are courting Hillary's supporters but this is not a bit charming to me....  Meanwhile Howard Dean is going to show them he means what he says and he is not going to let the votes count... Donna Brazille says roolz are roolz, so there is nothing she can do... This is beginning to sound like a dirty communist plot...

    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Steve M on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:33:14 PM EST
    Counter-productive for whom?  Hillary, or the Democratic Party?

    If the answer is the Democratic Party, then BTD's post is 110% on point.  The way to stop evil Hillary from hurting the party and its nominee is to count the votes and seat the delegates.

    Seat all the delegates (5.00 / 2) (#128)
    by Coral on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:04:34 PM EST
    as is, and Obama will still get the nomination. So I don't understand why he, and they, are fighting tooth and nail. They are going to push this to the point where there's no mending the angry feelings on both sides.

    I am at the point of bolting the party and I have voted in every election all my life, and always voted for the Democrats.

    This is really, amazingly, crazy.



    They (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:06:16 PM EST
    are fighting tooth and nail because Hillary will win the popular vote and they don't want to legitimize the votes coming out of MI & FL.

    Just had to see this (none / 0) (#140)
    by pie on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:09:51 PM EST

    They are fighting tooth and nail because Hillary will win the popular vote and they don't want to legitimize the votes coming out of MI & FL.


    Boy, this sure (5.00 / 3) (#66)
    by pie on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:35:55 PM EST
    demonstrates Obama's leadership skills, doesn't it?

    Really makes me want to vote for him in November.

    What angers me (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by lilburro on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:44:30 PM EST
    is the complete lack of acknowledgment of the statements shown in threads today that Hillary said the votes WOULD be counted.  That there was a large narrative that the votes WOULD be counted.  These people act like an ELECTION is a high school trend that is like, so last year.  Don't you know the rules?  WTF.  So now the pandering of politicians, the words they used to flatter Iowa and NH, is our gospel?  We're going to go to a convention with 48 good little states?  This isn't a freaking Catholic school; get over the high flung moral rationalizations and punishment desires when it comes to elections, people.

    as madamab posted today  Honor the Votes:  Salon

    "While Sen. Clinton will honor her commitment not to campaign in Florida in violation of the pledge, she also intends to honor her pledge to hear the voices of all Americans," the campaign says. "The people of Michigan and Florida have just as much of a right to have their voices heard as anyone else. It is disappointing to hear a major Democratic presidential candidate tell the voters of any state that their voices aren't important ... Sen. Clinton intends to be president for all fifty states. And while she will honor the pledge she signed and not campaign in either state, she intends to continue to give every American a voice during this election and when she gets to the White House."

    From Jan 15.  The logic makes sense, doesn't it?  We're not going to get on board with that?

    Obama counting the votes, and then complaining the results are skewed because he didn't campaign, that's an argument.  Maybe a good one.  Saying, I'm not going to count the votes because I didn't campaign there is ridiculous.  This is all so stupid.  

    What's stupid is the fact (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by pie on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:51:49 PM EST
    that they think the voters are going to fall for this.  Oh, Obama supporters will.

    Unfortunately, he needs more than 17 million votes in November.  And he needs Michigan.


    Obama said the same thing (none / 0) (#177)
    by Seth90212 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:39:58 PM EST
    what would you expect her to say, that MI and FL will be voiceless in her administration? The statement does not dispute the central point that the results of those primaries would not count toward the nomination.

    note (5.00 / 1) (#202)
    by lilburro on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:53:35 PM EST
    "And while she will honor the pledge she signed and not campaign in either state, she intends to continue to give every American a voice during this election and when she gets to the White House."

    What voice do MI and FL have in this election if not through their votes?  She's not talking about a future administration.  That would be a stupidly patronizing thing for a candidate to say.


    Evidently (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by creeper on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:48:53 PM EST
    Ezra flunked Logic 101.

    Obama interview (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by Step Beyond on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:52:58 PM EST
    This is terrible recording of an Orlando Sentinel reporter interviewing Obama.

    I've tried to transcribe some highlights for you:

    Reporter: "Today on your first trip back to Florida in a long time uh when you were up there why didn't you some time to the delegate situation at all. Either take it off the table by saying we should count them or we should compromise on them but you didn't address them at all.

    Obama: "Well for two reasons, one I knew you'd be asking about it. Number two frankly, uh I don't think it's an issue that is burning in the minds of ordinary voters. I think they are much more interested in my plan for healthcare or ending the war in Iraq. But what I have said in every interview since I've been down here is that I'm absolutely committed to making sure the Florida delegation is seated. It was not my preference to be away from Florida for so long. At the time I was following the rules that the DNC had laid out. But I'm now in a position where I'm likely to be the nominee. I want to do everything that I can to make sure that not only that the delegation is seated but that it has a voice at the convention. And my belief is that it's going to get resolved in an equitable way sometime in the next couple of weeks."

    Reporter: "Let me ask (garbled). You said you were following the rules set forth. The DNC had punished the state by stripping the delegates. The DNC though never told candidates 'Don't go there.' That was something you all were three could do"

    Obama: "I understand but"

    Reporter: "out of deference to the four early states."

    Obama: "Well it was more than that. It's also you've got you've got not only those four early states but 23 states on February 5th and you're in a very tight contest with a very formidable candidate. Devoting time to campaigning in a huge state that's very expensive that will award you no delegates it's just not a realistic option. Especially for a candidate who at the time who wasn't very well known in Florida. For us to get well known could have cost us 10 million dollars and it what we were competing for was delegates that just wasn't a realistic use of limited resources that we had. Obviously the situation has now changed. We're pivoting to a general election and I intend to compete vigorously. Spend a lot of time and a lot of money and devote a lot of staff resources in Florida. And I intend to win Florida."

    I will never be a professional transcriber. Oh and they are underpaid no matter what they make. :D

    Actually, I'd love to hear about (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by Valhalla on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:00:10 PM EST
    his plans for health care and ending the war.  'Cause his plans for anything, I've heard precious little of so far.

    his healthcare and Iraq plans (5.00 / 3) (#153)
    by Kathy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:23:08 PM EST
    can be found at HillaryClinton.com

    (just change the pronouns and add an "uh" here and there)


    Said it before, I'll say it again (none / 0) (#169)
    by Valhalla on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:35:23 PM EST
    You are wicked.

    Why would (none / 0) (#126)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:04:09 PM EST
    any of the FL voters care? After all if he won't stand up for their votes why would he stand up for them on any of those issues?

    "limited resources"? (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by nycstray on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:01:39 PM EST
    lol!~ really now . . .

    Plus (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by Step Beyond on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:10:59 PM EST
    He was already here fundraising. So he could take money from here, just not spend it here. Overall that's an answer he should think over again.

    The funny thing is that he (4.50 / 2) (#170)
    by LatinoVoter on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:35:56 PM EST
    spent 1.3 Million of his "limited resources" on the beauty contest that was Florida.

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by Edgar08 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:02:28 PM EST
    He'll address it when he can no longer be harmed by it.

    I wonder if Bush had a position on butterfly ballots after the supreme court rendered their verdict?


    When is never? (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by pie on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:32:48 PM EST
    He'll address it when he can no longer be harmed by it.

    Can he (5.00 / 5) (#125)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:02:46 PM EST
    ever just say something plainly? When I read or hear him he goes in circles so much that you wonder exactly what the heck he means.

    Cause he's a politican? :D (none / 0) (#139)
    by Step Beyond on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:09:46 PM EST
    It wasn't a very good interview. He should have had these answers down but he stumbled on them. Although that is possibly because I think he's normally a good speaker so I hold him to a higher standard.

    The answer for the delegates does not go over well with me. I don't appreciate someone who had a vote telling me that my not having a vote isn't important to me.

    But he did better with the campaigning answer. I would have liked a followup asking him why not refuse to sign the pledge and just not campaign? That way when he was here in Florida for a fundraiser he could at least talk to the reporters or great people outside the fundraiser. That wouldn't have cost him anything.


    Actually (5.00 / 2) (#148)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:18:34 PM EST
    he's not normally a good speaker. He can give a good speech off a teleprompter but he is very poor in interviews. He seems unprepared and constantly meanders.

    He's not a leader nor a fighter so you shouldn't be surprised about his answers. And yes, I thought it condescending the way he put it. It was long hand for "they'll get over it once I spend time here." Well, they may not get over it and FL is certainly not a blue state. His polling in the state is atrocious and I don't see it getting better with this type of behavior.


    First, thanks for the transcription - (5.00 / 3) (#207)
    by Anne on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:58:38 PM EST
    Now...as to what Obama said:

    Do I understand Obama correctly that he didn't raise the issue of Florida because he knew reporters would ask about it?  Huh?  Is this a version of "sweet puppy - no treats until you sit up and beg for it!"

    And his second reason for not mentioning it was because he thinks voters don't really care about it?  Is he seriously saying - in Florida, to Florida voters - that they don't really care about this voting debackle?  Like it's just a lot of insider nonsense?  He'll talk about it to reporters, in interviews, but not with actual voters...interesting tactic.

    As for the second part of that - the thing about why the candidates didn't go there - he's saying that it was not just that they agreed not to, it was that it would have been a waste of time since there was nothing in it for him.

    Jesus Christ on a crutch, this man is as obtuse as the day is long - and the days are getting longer, so make of that what you will.  Does he not understand what he's saying?  

    And he wonders why he cannot connect with the average voter, why people perceive him as elitist, why "audacious" may be the most diplomatic way to describe someone who exhibits an arrogance that I fear will not translate well to the Oval Office.

    My skin just crawls, really.


    Heh (5.00 / 2) (#116)
    by Steve M on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:56:28 PM EST
    You guys look like fools trying to claim that Hillary compared her situation to the opposition movement in Zimbabwe.

    The fact that many Obama supporters seem to hate Hillary so much that they are willing to parrot that lie does not make it any more true.

    From the outside you all look extremely deranged, pushing that sort of obvious misinterpretation.

    As for BTD, you seem to be playing gotcha with a prediction of his that turned out to be incorrect.  I guess you think it's a great trump card, but it strikes me as a giant so what.  Pointing out that BTD is not all-knowing is hardly a rebuttal to a specific argument.

    What exactly do people faulting Obama (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by Seth90212 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:02:21 PM EST
    want him to do? Has he violated any rules? Has he gone back on his word or a signed pledge? What is the remedy you seek?


    Not practical and couldn't be worked out in any event. Clinton herself was against re-votes until recently.

    Validating those rogue elections and accepting their results when everyone agreed they wouldn't count?

    Never going to happen. Being locked into this grossly unfair delusion has likely cost Clinton the nomination. Blame her and her cheerleaders here and elsewhere. Everybody warned them it wouldn't happen; that we ought to look for an equitable solution. Check my history here. I was saying this weeks ago. Others were saying it weeks before that. But Clinton supporters continued with their ridiculous fantasy that Obama would get zero votes and zero delegates from MI.

    I think I laqid it out in the post (5.00 / 3) (#132)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:06:49 PM EST
    I want him to thwart Hillary's evil plan by counting the votes and seating the delegates.

    I thought I wrote that pretty clearly.


    If Obama doesn't (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by pie on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:07:58 PM EST
    help settle this issue amicably, it just may cost him the presidency.

    Chew on that, Seth.


    Who took Obama off the ballot (5.00 / 5) (#141)
    by cawaltz on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:10:52 PM EST
    Nobody forced Barack Obama to take himself off the ballot. He made a political calculation. He should have to del with the consequences of that calculation. Furthermore, the idea he deserves not only ALL the uncommitted but some of the votes Clinton earned is absurd.

    Yes, yes and Yes. (5.00 / 2) (#179)
    by LatinoVoter on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:40:21 PM EST
    The day after he signed the pledge he had a press conference outside a fundraiser in FLA. Then leading up to the primary he aired commercials.

    So yes he violated the rules of the pledge by campaigning and he went back on his word.

    In the press conference in question Barack told the tv reporter that when he was the nominee he would do right by Florida and their delegates. He anointed himself the winner the other day and has yet to "do right by Florida."


    When oh When!!!! (none / 0) (#127)
    by Edgar08 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:04:21 PM EST
    Will Obama himself speak such truth to power.

    The votes should not count.


    BTW (none / 0) (#135)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:08:07 PM EST
    Obama gets the uncommitted votes and the uncommitted delegates IF HE COUNTS THE VOTES AND SEATS THE DELEGATES.

    It is imperative that he thwart her evil plan.


    I agree that this is the best way (none / 0) (#147)
    by Seth90212 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:18:13 PM EST
    to thwart these diabolical plans. Haha. But, check the history here and you'll notice that this was, and is still to this day, an unacceptable remedy for many Clinton diehards. To this very minute many of them still argue that Obama should get nothing.

    And by the way, BTD, Clinton herself has not endorsed your idea. It is questionable that she would accept.


    Clinton accepts it (5.00 / 2) (#150)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:20:12 PM EST
    I was on the call today. Wolfson said so.

    Another miscalculation in a terribly (none / 0) (#163)
    by Seth90212 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:30:24 PM EST
    run campaign. What good is it going to do her now? She didn't advocate this solution before. And her lack of advocacy for this meant that Obama could run out the clock since her original solution was ridiculous.

    Funny thing (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:41:54 PM EST
    Obama is going to be the nominee.

    He is the one who is going to lose FL in the Fall.

    You are pretty funny.


    Unsolicited advice (none / 0) (#204)
    by rilkefan on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:53:54 PM EST
    When you say !x now - x is very unlikely ever - and somebody demonstrates x - you ought to acknowledge it.  Not doing so weakens your argument here and any going forward.

    Why should she endorse it (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by pie on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:26:41 PM EST
    before the meeting?

    Obama took his name off the Michigan ballot, because he knew he wouldn't do well.  Hardly makes me want to consider him now.

    November will be interesting.


    But they have a clue as to losing the election (5.00 / 3) (#178)
    by lily15 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:39:59 PM EST
    How many Republicans have switched to backing Obama, especially financially?  How much money is really going to him from traditionally Republican sources?  Do we really trust the elite Democrats from our party?  You know, the fighters?  The Tom Daschle types who made nice with Bush? Or the Rockefeller types who supported telecom immunity?  Do we trust those guys?   We really don't know what's going on behind the scenes and who is paid to help Democrats lose.  Something is not right in this election.  Obama was the perfect candidate to lose us the general election and divide our party.
    It is a joke on us that he claims to be the unity candidate.   And he has demonstrated clearly now that he is no leader.  Nor a unifier either.  He is a puppet...a poseur...a dupe...as are many of his supporters.

     We are witnessing a very sophisticated effort to compromise the Democratic party and its elite, clueless, or corrupt leaders. People are duplicitous.  And money is involved. The people with common sense, the working class voters, get it.  There has been an ongoing calculated effort to destroy the Democratic party by destroying its strongest and most deserving candidate. Democrats are weak...that's why they lose.  So when are women going to start learning to fight to win? When will they stop making nice in the face of this lying, deceptive assault on our strongest Democrat? Hillary now sees what is going on, as do her supporters.  Obama is the farthest thing from a leader.  He is an empty suit funded by vested interests for a specific purpose.  It's our working class base who are the fighters.  That's why their candidate is Hillary.  Women are now getting it too.  We must take back the Democratic party and expose the traitors and weaklings...before it is too late.  This feels all too familiar.  And our intuition isn't wrong. Bob Somerby has been documenting it.  Why not start saying it openly?  WE are being lied to by other Democrats for a reason.  It's painful to acknowledge.  But we have been compromised.

    And that explains MI and FLA (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by lily15 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:46:35 PM EST
    It isn't about reason.  It is about a calculated effort to lose.  It is about alienating voters, not winning them over.  The only sensible explanation for not counting FLA is the desire to lose.  It is calculated to create a wedge issue.  And wedge issues work.  But why are Democrats in on it?  That is the question.

    Deja vu all over again (5.00 / 5) (#200)
    by macwiz12 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:50:30 PM EST
    Unlike the youngsters on the blogs, some of us are old enough to remember 1964 when the radical right pushed Barry Goldwater to the republican nomination or 1972 when the radical left gave the democratic party George McGovern.

    I was only 20 in 1964 so I couldn't vote in that election (yes, Virginia, you used to have to be 21 to vote). I also was a precinct delegate candidate in 1972 in Michigan pledged to Rep. Shirley Chisholm (if you don't know who she was, shame on you). I remember the 1960 campaign when the fight for the nomination between John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson was bitter and went all the way to the convention. A lot of Johnson supporters were prepared to bolt the party or sit out the election until Kennedy chose Johnson as his running mate. Without Johnson, Kennedy would have lost the election. Like a lot of us to came of age during Camelot, it is still the golden age (I was in organic chemistry lab on that fateful day in Dallas).

    What I learned from these two events is that blind devotion to a cause can be the recipe for disaster. Vince Lombardi understood politics better than a whole bunch of ideologues on both the left and the right;

             "Winning isn't everything; it is the only thing."

    Most democrats forget, that ONLY three democratic presidents won reelection during the twentieth century, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, and William Clinton.

    Senator Obama has displayed the ability to give speeches like John Kennedy but he still needs to show the qualities of leadership that John Kennedy displayed. The next step he needs to take is to say that we must seat the Florida delegates based on the votes in the Florida primary. Showing respect for the 1.7 million who went to the polls in January would be a sign of a leader not an individual who only wants to advance his own political advantage. If he truly is, as appears likely, the nominee, urging that all of the delegates from Florida be seated before the party hacks decide the nomination would be a sign of leadership and respect for the opinions of the voters.

    As a Floridian, I did not vote for Senator Obama or Senator Clinton. Based on the endorsement of John Edwards, my vote would probably go to a delegate who would vote for Senator Obama. So be it. But the votes must count to show respect for the democrats of Florida where he will need the work of local individuals to win election.

    As a Florida resident since 1980 and in other states before that, I have been a frequent volunteer for the democratic party. I have made the phone calls, stuffed the envelopes, and helped organize and attended the rallies. Doing this kind of work takes commitment. I am not sure that I am willing to make that commitment for a candidate that I WILL vote for but who refuses to respect the voters of my state. I know I shall not contribute one cent to a party that does not respect my opinion.

    What a great post! (5.00 / 1) (#225)
    by Teresa on Thu May 22, 2008 at 08:14:22 PM EST
    Everytime... (5.00 / 3) (#221)
    by Mrwirez on Thu May 22, 2008 at 08:06:59 PM EST
    Obama, his surrogates, his blogs, his bloggers, his wife, his pastor, his campaign manager, his friends..... SPEAK....
    I Dislike him/them more and more

    its just another problem for the (5.00 / 2) (#228)
    by miguelito on Thu May 22, 2008 at 08:18:32 PM EST
    the guy who has been sinking since March, I laugh when I think what his approvals will be in November.  To know him is to truly dislike him.  Because you can sense how much he dislikes you.

    Here he comes to save the day (5.00 / 1) (#222)
    by Evie on Thu May 22, 2008 at 08:07:33 PM EST
    Obama must save the poor, misled voters in Florida and Michigan from the clutches of that poisonous woman. Obama must convince the voters that not counting their votes is a GOOD thing. Obviously, because Obama says so.

    You don't REALLY want your votes to count, do you, Florida? You liked it enough last time, didn't you?

    I'm only doing this for your own good, Michigan. Your votes may say no, but your DNC says yes.

    Comments must be on topic (4.00 / 2) (#145)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:15:52 PM EST
    the topic is should Obama thwart Clinton's evil plan by counting the votes and by seating the FL/Mi delegations.

    Since Obama has already won the nomination, we all agree this will not alter the outcome.

    Therefore, I would like to hear why Obama would not thwart Clinton's evil plan and thus jeopardize the General Election.

    If you do not have something to say about that, then do not comment.

    oh, you minx (5.00 / 4) (#157)
    by Kathy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:26:19 PM EST
    Obama has not won the nomination.  If he'd won the nomination, then he actually would have won the nomination.

    What are the super delegates waiting for?  Why haven't they rushed over to his side?  Could it be they want to see who has the popular vote?


    BTD (none / 0) (#154)
    by cawaltz on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:23:20 PM EST
    I think the blogger boyz ought to be arguing at this point that the reason they don't want these seated is because it will come off as too little, too late. They aren't saying it out loud but they in all likelihood are ceding these states to McCain.

    He can't (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:42:28 PM EST
    win without MI. Good grief, why don't they just say he's unelectable and quit dancing around. Just say Obama is who they want to run and they don't care about winning in Nov. Of course, when that happens, there goes everything. The whole DNC will be tossed out on its behind.

    C'mon BTD - (1.00 / 4) (#35)
    by EddieInCA on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:27:18 PM EST
    There can be no denying that Clinton's comments yesterday were out of bounds. To compare the Florida/Michigan situation to those of the Zimbabwe elections was outrageous.  

    People in Zimbabwe are getting KILLED due to their votes.

    That no one on this site can/will call out Clinton on those comments says alot.

    Out of bounds? (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:30:06 PM EST
    Are you freaking nuts? Poltiicians talk BS ALL  THE EFFING time? will you people EVEr grow up? EVER?

    Zimbabwe remark (5.00 / 4) (#75)
    by Molly Pitcher on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:38:05 PM EST
    "People go through the motions of an election only to have it discarded and disregarded. We're seeing that right now in Zimbabwe -- tragically an election was held, the president lost, they refused to abide by the will of the people. So we can never take for granted our precious right to vote."

    Do you think everyone OUGHT to take for granted the right to vote?  What is taken for granted is often discarded or lost.

    Why do so many twist what is said: about LBJ and MLK, about Zimbabwe?  Did anyone besides me take English composition?  She did NOT compare Florida and Zimbabwe (like she did not threaten, but warned, the DNC); she said we ought to learn from the example of Zimbabwe that our right to vote is precious and needs protection.


    O my gosh. (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by pie on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:46:23 PM EST

    Are you kidding me?

    Of course, since we weren't born yesterday, Eddie's (faux) outrage tells me that he's trying to change the subject.



    Shorter Eddie in CA: (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by pie on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:39:48 PM EST
    Look over there. Waaaaaaaaaaay over there.

    If Obama has the nomination (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by waldenpond on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:49:13 PM EST
    why do Obama supporters continue sniping at Clinton (and her supporters) about the primary.  Get over it, move on and start fighting your GE battle.  What is the matter with people.

    They have nothing to fight for (5.00 / 6) (#105)
    by Edgar08 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:50:29 PM EST
    After defeating Clinton.

    They don't care about Obama that much really.


    It's amazing someone with zero supporters... (none / 0) (#7)
    by Exeter on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:16:06 PM EST
    ...(all Hillary voters are anti-Obama)... can sway millions of voters-- especially an issue she fabricated!

    Haha (none / 0) (#16)
    by Steve M on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:20:38 PM EST
    Fish in a barrel BTD.

    I thought it was actually pretty telling that Wolfson instantly recoiled on today's call when the question was whether he was calling Obama's nomination illegitimate.

    You know (none / 0) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:23:59 PM EST
    I said to him that it was gracious of him to rekect that characterization but that in fact it would be viewed as illegitimate by many people and that wasn't it in Obama's interest IN NOVEMBER to seat the delegations, Howard was not looving my question but Ickes junped in and said any Dem nominee who does not want to seat the FL and MI delegations is not thinking about November.

    Well (none / 0) (#34)
    by Steve M on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:26:57 PM EST
    You are right, but the responsible campaign does not SAY it imo.

    The "coup" argument by Team Obama has been destructive to the cause of unity, and so would an "illegitimate" argument from the Clinton campaign.  Basic rule for Democratic primaries: you can call your opponent a terrorist hugger if you must, but don't ever cross the line of saying it wouldn't be legitimate if they won the nomination.  That's a nuclear option that inevitably leads to your supporters sitting out the November election because they think it was stolen from you.


    According to a Senator from (none / 0) (#48)
    by zfran on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:30:11 PM EST
    Fla on Lou Dobbs said that 25-30% of Fla dems said they would either stay home or vote Rep. if they are not seated at the convention and their votes counted. He is one of the architects of the lawsuit.

    Is the audio of today's conference call (none / 0) (#197)
    by oculus on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:49:51 PM EST

    Here is what happens (none / 0) (#19)
    by joanneleon on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:22:49 PM EST
    when you try to make a case called Every Vote Counts at the ObamaBlogMajor:


    Note: this isn't my diary, it's just (another foolish) attempt to read a candidate diary over there.

    I think Bob is having an f-ing stroke. (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Teresa on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:26:08 PM EST
    He won the contest for angriest post about this, I'd say.

    It sounds like he's saying.. (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by AX10 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:43:09 PM EST
    "God Damn America".

    And if you ask him (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by Edgar08 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:49:44 PM EST
    If Clinton rode AAs dirty like he rode that Lewinsky, he'll have an answer ready for you, as well?

    Bob is probably the one who runs up and pats Rev. Wright on the back.


    What a surprise that that comment is (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by MarkL on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:26:54 PM EST
    from Orange Obama's worst, most inflammatory, least honest diarist.

    Believe me...their are plenty others... (none / 0) (#50)
    by citizen53 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:30:43 PM EST
    who show us just what the politics of hope and unity is all about.

    spare me, from DK, please (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by thereyougo on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:33:05 PM EST
    YOU KNEW THE RULES! (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by lilburro on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:47:26 PM EST

    Wow (5.00 / 2) (#186)
    by kempis on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:43:44 PM EST
    I entirely grant that Barack Obama deserves the nomination more than Hillary Clinton. He ran from behind, he out-raised her, out-organized her, understood the rules better and actually has won more pledged delegates.

    But what do the voters deserve? Isn't that what this should be about? Isn't that what a democracy should be about?

    For this even-handedness and a well-thought-out diary you get cursed at for a page?

    Is Bob Johnson feeling periodically down or something?


    You know (none / 0) (#29)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:25:39 PM EST
    Bob Johnson is one of my blogging buddies and I must say for once, I miss a chance to comment at daily kos.

    Cuz I have just the response for him.

    It involves November. And the rules about that.


    Man (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by Steve M on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:28:31 PM EST
    I really enjoyed Bob's snark when he was one of the good guys.

    Now that his vitriol is aimed at a candidate I respect it is really difficult to deal with him.

    Al Rodgers is another popular DK blogger who I never imagined could be so hateful.


    They were (none / 0) (#118)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:58:26 PM EST
    both pretty bad in 2004 as Dean supporters. Fortunately, Dean imploded pretty early into the primary and they got better later on.

    Yikes (none / 0) (#149)
    by rghojai on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:18:39 PM EST
    Had felt like the person in question was a little one-note, too into being a curmudgeon (or playing one on teh internets), saying things more to antagonize, get a reaction than to thoughtfully share insights, but it feels like things changed. Several months ago, it started coming across to me as crossing a line, as unpleasant and disturbing.

    As you can tell (none / 0) (#68)
    by Edgar08 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:36:15 PM EST
    He doesn't F-ing care!  November is F-ing stupid.

    Parking (none / 0) (#78)
    by DaveOinSF on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:38:33 PM EST
    I'm sure there are other worthy races or initiatives on the November ballot to merit your attention.  I guess your state doesn't have liberal absentee voting laws huh.

    I'm letting the weather and down ticket (none / 0) (#83)
    by nycstray on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:41:05 PM EST
    decide if I get off the couch or not  ;)

    Pot.. Meet Kettle (NT) (none / 0) (#93)
    by EddieInCA on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:45:27 PM EST

    Really? (none / 0) (#100)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:49:17 PM EST
    You got a quote of mine you want to highlight?

    Obama the magnificent (none / 0) (#111)
    by pluege on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:52:37 PM EST
    the beautification of Obama is so patently obvious I have no idea why we even bothered with a nomination process.

    BTD, It seems (none / 0) (#121)
    by AX10 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:01:07 PM EST
    The American Prospect and The Nation have joined the ranks of The National Examiner and The Star.

    Please be respectful (none / 0) (#159)
    by freethinker25 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:26:53 PM EST
    I am not lying I said MAJOR candidates.

    "Four Democratic presidential candidates - U.S. Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, U.S. Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.) and former U.S. Sen. John Edwards - filed affidavits with the Michigan Department of State requesting that their names be removed from Michigan's Jan. 15 Democratic Party Primary ballot.

    This means four Democratic candidates are still on the Michigan ballot: U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton D-N.Y.), U.S. Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.), U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich and U.S. Sen. Mike Gravel (D-Ala.)."

    Is this not pandering to Iowa?

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

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

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

    How can he already be nominated when (none / 0) (#171)
    by athyrio on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:36:16 PM EST
    the SD's are free to change their minds up until the convention and then and only then can we nominate a winner.....(this per Jeralyn in another thread)

    End stages of CDS (none / 0) (#187)
    by ruffian on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:44:21 PM EST
    Wherein the victims are do consumed by the disease they can't see the obvious solutions to the evil plots they are imagining Clinton is hatching.

    That BEOTCH! (none / 0) (#219)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 08:03:40 PM EST
    Wanting to count those votes.  The EVIL, it HUUUURTS!

    Anyone ever feel like we've all stepped into:

    "National Lampoon's.... E L E C T I O N!"

    It's just freaking hillarious.

    Stay in, Hillary.  The laughs are good for us!