home

Obama: FL Delegation Will Be Seated

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:31:16 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

In this interview with the Palm Beach Post, Barack Obama says the Florida delegation will be seated:

Q: At this point in the race, why not seat the entire Florida delegation with a full vote based on the Jan. 29 primary?

[OBAMA]: They're definitely going to be seated. We're not the final decision maker on this. But we've said to the DNC that we want the Florida delegation to be seated, and I'm confident that it's going to be worked out sometime in the next 10 days. I expect that the delegates are going to be participating at the convention.

(Emphasis supplied.) Good for Obama. Here's a bonus - Obama gives Donna Brazile the stiff arm:

Q: Senator Hillary Clinton was in Palm Beach County this week calling for the delegation to be given a full vote. At this point in the race, is there any reason you haven't taken the same position in public?

[OBAMA:] The key for me is just making sure the Florida delegation is seated. I don't want to get too deep in the weeds of the DNC rules.

Keep in mind that the people who put these rules together and people who made these decisions are generally not people of my selection. I'm not yet the nominee or at the point where I'm the person who's helping to shape the DNC. I'll have more public commentary about.

(Emphasis supplied.) Obama's is saying, 'don't look at me, Donna Brazile did this.' And he has a point.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< McCain Takes Ambien | Obama's Offer on FL and MI Amounts to Nothing >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Obama: FL Delegation Will Be Seated | 178 comments (178 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    seated? (5.00 / 13) (#2)
    by kredwyn on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:34:11 PM EST
    aye...even Dean has said that.

    Is he okay with the delegation having a vote?

    He still doing the legal tap dance (5.00 / 8) (#20)
    by ineedalife on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:40:58 PM EST
    You are right. "Participate in the convention" is not the same as having a vote on the nominee.

    [ Parent ]
    This wannabe nominee has been caught (5.00 / 6) (#50)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:51:47 PM EST
    not being truthful one too many times to suit me; so forgive me if I don't jump on obama's Free Pass
    Express...

    [ Parent ]
    Florida is just so yesterday (5.00 / 9) (#3)
    by DCDemocrat on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:34:16 PM EST
    President-Elect Obama finds the entire process of becoming president to be too tedious to attend to.  Not only has he decided to skip winning the nomination, he also now has decided to skip winning the election.  We're in the transition phase now:

    blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/05/obamas_running_mate_hunt_jarre.html

    Congratulations to all my fellow Democrats on winning back the presidency.  By the way, how did we do in the Senate and House races?  I missed the news.

    Didn't you hear? (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by madamab on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:46:40 PM EST
    We just took an exit poll of all Americans and decided the election that way. Congratulations, President David Cook!

    ;-)

    [ Parent ]

    A Democrat Becomes President (none / 0) (#57)
    by DCDemocrat on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:56:21 PM EST
    Without California.

    How cool is that?  I mean, given that President-Elect Obama is planning his transition despite the first hint that McCain may carry California and all.

    [ Parent ]

    Not a surprise to me. (5.00 / 3) (#64)
    by madamab on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:01:41 PM EST
    Against Obama, McCain could make a lot of the "safe" blue states competitive. Many of us have been saying this for a while.

    [ Parent ]
    yes (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:08:26 PM EST
    this is what I have been saying and no one wants to believe it.
    "And in at least one of the scenarios, the results may surprise many folks"
    it will be very interesting to see which camp the "surprise" will be for.
    I would say Obama but there was a recent poll that showed him doing better.
    BUT
    McCain could win california.  get your minds around it.

    [ Parent ]
    I've (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:16:02 PM EST
    read where McCain will contest CA against Obama. McCain believes that he can win due to Obama's demographic weaknesses.

    [ Parent ]
    I agree with him (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:19:16 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Did you hear McCain on NPR today? (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by oculus on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:22:26 PM EST
    Conference in Silicon Valley.  Strong call for more Indian engineers, requested by Silicon Valley powers that be.  Also strong call for farm workers under a guest worker program.  Finally, a strong call for providing a logical, efficient pathway to legal immigration.  

    [ Parent ]
    And people (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:28:53 PM EST
    think that McCain is a bad candidate? This is clueless imo. He's the best candidate the GOP has put up in decades. And the making fun of his age is something I find downright offensive.

    [ Parent ]
    The very least (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by cal1942 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:25:17 PM EST
    a competitive California will mean is resources, lots of resources, will not be available in swing states.

    [ Parent ]
    McCain won't win California (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by dianem on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:32:51 PM EST
    But Obama will have to campaign here, insted of just fundraising. That means that he will have to use resources that he could be using elsewhere. People seem to think that the fact that McCain doesn't have an active ground game or extensive GE fundraising right now means that his campaign is weak. It doesn't. obama is raising money hand over fist because he is in a very competitive primary. McCain will get money and ground troops for the GE - if Rove has to call every GOP fundraising personally. Rove has put his stamp on McCain. This election is going to be Rove v. Axelrod. It will be interesting.

    [ Parent ]
    Bush is starting fundraisers for McCain (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by BarnBabe on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:37:53 PM EST
    He will raise him the money.

    [ Parent ]
    McCain will have all the money (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:42:23 PM EST
    he needs.
    they are republicans fer gods sake.
    as far as the absolute confidence of winning CA,
    talk to me in Oct.


    [ Parent ]
    Obama will win Cal by 10 points (none / 0) (#121)
    by riddlerandy on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:32:07 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    My yellow dog sister and brother-in-law (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by DCDemocrat on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:48:38 PM EST
    in California are thinking about voting McCain.

    [ Parent ]
    I have about 3 dozen (5.00 / 2) (#142)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:53:00 PM EST
    yellow dog relatives all over CA and every single one of them is voting for McCain.


    [ Parent ]
    That's why I said 10 and not 12 points (none / 0) (#145)
    by riddlerandy on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:01:10 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Speaking of so yesterday, 105 years ago (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Cream City on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:07:35 PM EST
    today, the first state adopted the direct primary.

    "On this date Wisconsin became the first state to adopt a direct primary election law. This was one of many Progressive reforms enacted under the governership of Robert M. La Follette. The law was approved by voters in a 1904 referendum. Prior to the introduction of this law, candidates were selected by caucuses and conventions, not directly by electors. [Source: Wisconsin Historical Society]"

    Senator Obama's behavior in this matter, toward Michigan voters in removing himself from the primary ballot and his and Prima Donna and the DNC's behavior toward them and Florida voters in obstructing their attempts to have their votes counted, dishonors the memory of Fighting Bob.

    Obama, Brazile, Dean, et al., are not progressives, as this and their many actions in this primary season make clear -- including their behavior toward Senator Clinton.  The equally great progressive Belle Case LaFollette would have been with her all the way -- and her work and words (as her spouse's speechwriter and campaign manager) also are being dishonored by Dems today.

    Of course, the LaFollettes and their followers, the progressives, were Republicans.  Ponder that on this day in our sorry history for more than a century since -- and, btw, ponder why Fighting Bob fought to abolish caucuses as part of the party system.

    [ Parent ]

    Don't look at me. (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by rooge04 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:34:24 PM EST
    I don't do anything. Just every one of my surrogates does.  That leaves my hands clean.

    Surrogates? (none / 0) (#9)
    by CST on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:36:09 PM EST
    That's his point.  They AREN'T his surrogates.  Just because they like him doesn't mean he endorses them or their actions.

    [ Parent ]
    Oh please. He hasn't said a word (5.00 / 9) (#13)
    by rooge04 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:38:49 PM EST
    while Donna Brazile speaks for him from the DNC perch. Let's not play coy now.

    [ Parent ]
    Glad you are paying attention Rooge.... (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:13:10 PM EST
    You're sharp, but it is shameful how obama keeps trying to dupe people.
    What's more shameful is some people keep falling for it.  

    [ Parent ]
    But he's been silent about her... (5.00 / 6) (#16)
    by kredwyn on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:40:11 PM EST
    til now.

    At any point in this whole proceedings, he could have called her up and said "Could ya chill?"

    Why now as opposed to...oh...say February?

    [ Parent ]

    Right (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by BarnBabe on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:03:19 PM EST
    And he should have stood against the media and their crude remarks on a fella Democrat. Even now. As for the DNC, they are history to me. Will save me a lot of money in the future. Obama was right about seeing Bill dance because Obama is the master of Dance. He reminds me of one of those people, and you know we all know someone, who never takes responsibilty for their actions. It is always someone elses fault that the sky if falling in their life.  

    [ Parent ]
    Exactly. (5.00 / 3) (#86)
    by rooge04 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:13:21 PM EST
    Even if he goes on to make The Great Gender Speech as a result of the misogyny....he's never done it when it counts.  He's done everything in his power NOT to seat FL or MI.  

    [ Parent ]
    snort. (5.00 / 6) (#22)
    by Salo on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:42:46 PM EST
    Donna is his pointman.

    [ Parent ]
    No Leadership (5.00 / 6) (#5)
    by Athena on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:35:07 PM EST
    But Obama - seeking to lead the country - exhibited no leadership for these voters and these states.

    He failed that audition.  It's hollow now.

    Was Hillary's Leadership on this issue.... (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Bluebeard on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:46:45 PM EST
    better than Obama's?  The highest-level people in her campaign ruled that Florida and Michigan would have no delegates.  And she expressly said that Michigan wouldn't "count for anything" and that this was a "race for 2,025" delegates -- that is, that Florida and Michigan would get nothing.

    Does that make for a great contrast with Obama?  Sure, she's come around to saying that the delegations should be seated, in full -- but, interestingly, only after it became clear that doing so would benefit her politically.  Is that great leadership?

    If not counting Fla. and Mich. is a civil rights issue on par with Jim Crow and Zimbabwe, where was she when she had real power to keep this problem from happening?

    [ Parent ]

    Once again... (5.00 / 5) (#59)
    by madamab on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:57:27 PM EST
    she always wanted those votes to be counted AND the delegates to be seated.

    She didn't "make" Ickes disagree with Brazile. Obama didn't "make" Brazile push for the nuclear option. They both sucked there.

    But once the decision was made, Clinton has been consistent in her position, which just happens to be on the right side of the issue.

    [ Parent ]

    Make that 8 millionth time again n/t (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by Valhalla on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:14:51 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    See below.... (none / 0) (#137)
    by Bluebeard on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:47:25 PM EST
    Clinton said in October 2007 that the vote in Michigan wouldn't "count for anything."  She did not "always" say that the vote wouldn't count -- she said the exact opposite!  And she only changed her tune AFTER the others had taken their names off the ballot.

    Likewise, she said on February 22, 2008 (!) on Good Morning America that this was a race for "2,025" delegates.  NOT 2,209.  Clearly EXCLUDING Florida or Michigan, completely.

    And her campaign repeatedly said EXACTLY the same thing.

    It is simply delusional to say that she "always" wanted Florida and Michigan to count.

    [ Parent ]

    By the way... (none / 0) (#143)
    by Bluebeard on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:57:36 PM EST
    ....as has been pointed out elsewhere, Ickes was on HER payroll as a campaign adviser.  Brazile was not, and has never been, on Obama's payroll.

    Now, do you think Ickes talked with Clinton about his decision before he made it, or not?  Think about that -- but just as importantly, think about what Hillary said right AFTER the decision to strip the delegates.....

    As discussed below on this thread, over and over again Clinton and her campaign clearly accepted that Florida and Michigan wouldn't "count for anything" -- both by saying exactly that and by agreeing that this was a race "for 2,025 delegates," NOT 2,209.  As everybody knows, "2,025" clearly EXCLUDED Fla. and Mich.

    They were perfectly content to leave Fla. and Mich. OUT of the equation -- until they saw Obama's strength in Iowa and the other states, that is.

    Now, who has been "inconsistent" and "speaking out of both sides" of his or her mouth on this?

    [ Parent ]

    Other quotes have been (none / 0) (#148)
    by madamab on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:09:37 PM EST
    posted on this thread, as well.

    Official campaign quotes.

    And the full interview you cite, instead of the cherry-picking nonsense you all pull out of your butts.

    "But-but-but CLINTON!" doesn't work on us. I guess we are too "high-information" for that.

    [ Parent ]

    wrong (5.00 / 3) (#79)
    by Josey on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:08:27 PM EST
    Prior to the FL Jan 29 primary - Obama discouraged FL voters from participating in the primary.
    Hillary encouraged voter participation.

    Salon - Jan. 16, 2008

    http://tinyurl.com/4uovgf

    >>>>...Obama spokesman Bill Burton offered a reminder that the primaries in Michigan and Florida will "have no bearing on the Democratic nomination contest" because the states won't have any delegates at the national convention.

    Not so fast, says the Clinton campaign. In a memo just circulated in response..."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.

    (it's doubtful these facts will register at DK & other Obama blogs)

    [ Parent ]

    please stop selectively quoting (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by desert dawg on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:42:35 PM EST
    check out the full NHPR interview for what she really said and stop repeating the one line cited by every Obama blog from here to Timbuktu.

    (caller Q)

    HRC: I signed the DNC pledge not to campaign, not to spend money, in any of the states that were not in compliance with the rules established by the DNC that certainly strongly maintains NH's status.  I personally did not think it made any difference whether or not my name was on the ballot...(remarks about people of NH & IA wanting to win GE)...But if you look at some of the states we have to win, the margins have been narrow, and it wasn't in my view meaningful, but I'm not going to say that there's absolutely a total ignoring of the people in all these other states that won't come back to haunt us if we're not careful about it.

    ( Host Q re: then why not just take your name off)

    HRC: I personally did not think it made any difference, uh, whether or not my name was on the ballot. You know, it's clear, this election they're having is not going to count for anything, but I just personally didn't want to set up a situation where the Republicans are going to be campaigning between now and whenever and then after the nomination you know we have to go in and repair the damage to be ready to win in Michigan in November 2008.  I'm not going to campaign there before the deadline of the February 5th window, I'm not going to spend any money there, but I did not believe it was fair to , you know, just say, "Goodbye, Michigan" and not take into account the fact that we're going to have to win Michigan if we're going to be in the White House in January, 2009.

    (Host Q re: do you think it was a tactical mistake by Mssrs Obama and Edwards to take their names off?

    HRC: Well, they have to speak for themselves.



    [ Parent ]
    She did demande Ickes' resignation (1.00 / 0) (#43)
    by Tom Hilton on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:49:50 PM EST
    Oh, wait--she didn't.  Never mind.  

    [ Parent ]
    he's (5.00 / 6) (#7)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:35:46 PM EST
    talking out of both sides of his mouth again. He isn't going to do it.

    I do agree that it isn't his fault in the first place but the fact that he has failed to stand up to the voters shows a severe lack of leadership ability. The fact that he has let this drag on and on also shows a lack of leadership.

    Do you honestly think that he's actually going to do something about it now? I don't.

    This is sure to go to the convention the way it looks now.

    Howard Dean granted veto power (5.00 / 5) (#26)
    by catfish on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:45:30 PM EST
    to both candidates when we were talking about revotes. That was such a screwup move on Dean's part, he had a responsibility to make a decision and he passed.

    Because of all this uncertainty, no matter who the nominee is people will see him/her as illegitimate.

    Cannot believe I wanted Dean for president.

    [ Parent ]

    Don't (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:49:33 PM EST
    feel bad. I wanted Kerry in 2004. I probably feel just as disillusioned as you do. However, it has been a learning experience.

    [ Parent ]
    I know how you feel - I campaigned all over... (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by alexei on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:05:46 PM EST
    until the end in Madison, WI and then helped with letters to get him Chairmanship.  Boy, was I ever wrong.  But, agree that Kerry isn't any better, so I guess BTD was right - Wes Clark should have been the nominee.

    [ Parent ]
    I wanted Dean too (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by BarnBabe on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:09:57 PM EST
    He was refreshing, new, exciting, and all about taking back the White House. I was for Kerry too afterwards. Wait, I need to count on my fingers, #1, I was for Dean. #2, I was for Kerry, #3, I was sure not for Bush.  Dean was great in 2006 with the 50 states. What happened? He delegated a little too much and because he did not speak up to the media on Hillary's behalf, he can go too.

    [ Parent ]
    What I don't regret is Dean had and has (5.00 / 4) (#94)
    by catfish on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:19:06 PM EST
    a muscular, unapologetic liberal temperament, vs. a wimpy apologatic liberal temperament (Kerry.)

    Hillary has the same unapologetic temperament.

    [ Parent ]

    Don't forget (5.00 / 3) (#114)
    by Valhalla on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:29:39 PM EST
    He only said this much because he was asked.  That's not much of a leadership skill -- a leader gets ahead of the issues, they don't just sit around waiting for someone to ask their opinion.

    Back in Feb. I voted for Clinton but it was close.  Since then my queasiness with Obama's has increased because (inter alia) he and his campaign seem remarkably unable to anticipate and get ahead of possible problems.

    On the whole Rev. Wright thing, I really didn't give a toot that Obama stayed in that church.  What I found problematic was the fact that Obama failed to anticipate that it would be an issue and have a response ready. Of course it was going to be a damn issue.  He could have guessed someone, somewhere, might pop up with a question on Rezko.  Nope.  He could have gotten out ahead on the MI-FL issue weeks ago, he didn't.  He could have anticipated that the 'we don't need you' talking points would alienate potential support.  He didn't.  He could have quite reasonably anticipated that Michelle's "I hate America" theme would not play well in Peoria.  Oops, missed that one too.

    That, combined with the inability to respond well in non-speech arenas is troubling.  When he can't control the communication, he falters.  (Both things, btw, I find very odd in a lawyer).

    Mistakes are one thing; when candidates are on camera 24/7, no one can say the perfect thing every time.  But this is a pattern of failure.  Like I said, queasy.

    [ Parent ]

    BEWARE! (5.00 / 8) (#8)
    by Shainzona on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:35:58 PM EST
    "I expect that the delegates are going to be participating at the convention."

    This does not necessairly mean that they will be allowed to VOTE for the POTUS nominee.  Watch the weasel words!!!

    It's not good enough for they get to go to Denver and play with the other delegates...they must be allowed to vote for the nominee..not just rule changes.

    I'll believe that Obama will let the entire (5.00 / 5) (#10)
    by honora on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:37:33 PM EST
    Florida delegation vote in the nominating vote when I see it.  I think what he says and what he means are two different things.

    Or (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:38:52 PM EST
    he says this now, but he'll say something else when this no longer suits him.

    [ Parent ]
    yeah (5.00 / 7) (#15)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:39:25 PM EST
    he's told us this little story too many times. He says one thing and then has his surrogates do things like kill revotes. It's tiresome.

    Really the more he talks, the more he drives me away.

    [ Parent ]

    Can I say something OT to you? (5.00 / 6) (#34)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:46:48 PM EST
    You know why I know Obama has a real problem with Clinton supporters? Because I knew you when you were a very reasonable commenter who rarely showed flashes of anger. Heck, I do not even remember you as being much of a Clinton supporter at all int he beginning.

    As I see you get angrier and angrier at Obama (you were not like this in the beginning of the campaign) I realize how much damage has been done.

    Of course I will try and get you to dial it back and come back t the fold but please understand I mean no disrespect or condescension.

    I am going to vote for the Dem no matter what always. Not everyone is like me. But you used to be sort of like that.

    And I see you are not anymore. And anyone who has seen how your attitude has changed shouldbe worried.

    [ Parent ]

    My heart stopped when I read this (5.00 / 6) (#60)
    by katiebird on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:58:57 PM EST
    You could be describing me.

    You don't know me at all, but I too didn't care in the beginning.  The day Edwards dropped out, I was totally almost undecided.  I leaned toward Hillary because of the "Your likable enough, Hillary" comment.  But it was health care that clinched it for me.

    It's different for me now.  I'm as sure as can be that I could never vote for Obama.  

    [ Parent ]

    I only know you from Confluence (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:02:38 PM EST
    I knew GA6th Dem for years at dkos and MYDD.

    So I can really see the change.

    [ Parent ]

    Did I say I was describing you? (1.66 / 3) (#67)
    by Seth90212 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:02:25 PM EST
    You do not speak for Clinton supporters nor are you necessarily a representative sample. In fact the deadenders who will only be happy if Obama relinquishes the nomination are not representative of the typical Clinton supporter.

    [ Parent ]
    She was respondfing to me (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:03:48 PM EST
    you actually need to dial it back dude.

    In my view, you have actually been a pretty good representative for Obama on this blog. But you are getting a bit rough lately.

    [ Parent ]

    Sorry, BTD, my mistake (none / 0) (#117)
    by Seth90212 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:30:07 PM EST
    My apologies, Katie.

    [ Parent ]
    This is a mirror image of my experience (none / 0) (#127)
    by ItsGreg on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:36:33 PM EST
    I was originally a Hillary supporter. I've always liked her and thought she was the smartest and toughest of the Clintons. And I so wanted to see how the Saudis (among others) would deal with a woman president.

    Over time, though, I switched my support to Edwards. When he dropped out, I moved back toward Hillary (in part because of Obama's cavalier "you're likable enough" comment). But as I watched the Clinton campaign at work, I became disillusioned by how traditional it was. Seek out the big ticket donors, focus on the 'important' states, hire the same old political faces for huge amounts of money. So I gradually found myself becoming supportive of Obama.

    If I was voting based on who I like the most, I'd be voting for Hillary. But I'm voting for the person I think has a better chance (slim as it is) of actually changing the way politics has been run for the last couple of decades.

    [ Parent ]

    BTD (5.00 / 6) (#87)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:14:08 PM EST
    I wasn't that big of a Clinton supporter in the beginning. You are right there. I thought we had better candidates than her and I still believe that we did. I think Biden would have been a great candidate (though I'm probably the only one in the blogosphere who thinks that). I really got pushed into being a strong one because of the Obama campaign and his supporters. All of a sudden I've become a racist because I don't think Obama is the best candidate.

    Here's Obama's fatal mistake and reason that he'll likely be unable to unite the party: he is running the George W. Bush campaign all over again. The "I've won before everything is done", the prancing around with "mission accomplished." The constant calling for Hillary to quit has been extremely divisive too. If he had quietly let the process play out and tried to sell himself and why he was the better candidate instead of simply calling Bill and Hillary names it would have been much better. It hasn't been that way and I feel like the party is jerking us around too. Dean has been a horrible DNC leader even though I thought he would be a good one and even supported him for the position.

    I really do like and respect you BTD and I do value your opinion. PS. You aren't being condescending at all and I appreciate what you have said.

    [ Parent ]

    I'm a big Biden fan. My brother said (5.00 / 0) (#90)
    by zfran on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:16:53 PM EST
    what if Obama ran with Biden as VP and I said I will not vote for Obama, however, if the ticket were possibly Biden/Obama, I might consider it.

    [ Parent ]
    You hit the nail on the head (none / 0) (#167)
    by MonaL on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:27:33 PM EST
    exactly, his Bush-like behavior has been really disturbing, not to mention the behavior of his supporters.  I liked Obama and could have voted for him early on, but the tag-team by he and John Edwards at the early debates pushed me to Clinton.  They hurt her candidacy the way the Obama-bots claimed she did to his with the kitchen sink.  The difference was they used Republican talking points on her, and that crossed a line.

    As of today, I won't vote for Obama in the GE if he's the nominee.

    [ Parent ]

    This is hardly representative of Clinton (1.00 / 0) (#54)
    by Seth90212 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:54:21 PM EST
    supporters. The vast majority will vote for any Democrat Obama's already consolidating some of the demographics he had trouble with against Clinton. Hispanics, in particular, are now solidly on board.

    [ Parent ]
    I think you are wrong (5.00 / 3) (#63)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:01:40 PM EST
    You have not know Ga6thDem as long as I have.

    I fear she is very representative.

    In some ways, I think you are emblematic of part of the Obama supporters problem - they think that people like GA6thDem are some type of anomaly. She's not.

    [ Parent ]

    BTD - you don't know me either (5.00 / 4) (#81)
    by madamab on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:08:53 PM EST
    but that is me too.

    I stopped liking Obama very early in the game, but I was always more than willing to vote for him AND push a Unity ticket. He had a decent voting record and a "D" after his name; plus, he was getting so many people to vote for him! What could really outweigh those considerations?

    Now he's gone way, way too far. I simply don't have any faith or trust that he shares my core Democratic values. Moreover, his lack of experience terrifies me. We can't afford to have someone learning on the job at this point. And, he is weak on foreign AND domestic policy IMHO.

    In addition, I am used to voting for someone I don't like, since I am a super-lefty, but his nasty, divisive, dismissive and tone-deaf campaign has put me over the edge.

    For the first time in my life, I am positive that should Obama be the nominee, I will not be voting for the top of the ticket in November. A "Unity" ticket won't help unless HRC is on the top.

    And trust me, there are many, many more like me.

    [ Parent ]

    Me, three. My husband, four... (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by Shainzona on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:26:36 PM EST
    And my daugther, five!

    Never for Obama.  Never.

    [ Parent ]

    Said it well (5.00 / 3) (#118)
    by BarnBabe on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:30:22 PM EST
    People think any Democrat will do in order to get the White House back. But we saw with Carter and Bush Sr, that a D or an R does not make a good President for either side. In 2000, they said it was Gore's to lose as things were great in the world compared to now. They said last year it was for the Dems to lose and we are heading that way. And yes, I am angry with the DNC, the surrogates, and the media. Deplorable treatment of a Lady. And I might mention that in 20 years when a Little Orangette might be running for public office, I hope she will be treated with more respect than Hillary has received.

    [ Parent ]
    Describes me too (5.00 / 4) (#125)
    by Valhalla on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:35:17 PM EST
    as said above, I have lots of practice voting for candidates I don't like.  Hell, I wasn't even that crazy about Bill, I just wanted the all-out-assault of the Reagan-Bush on my civil rights to stop.  Would've voted for a pot-bellied pig if it could've done that.

    But this is a different ballgame.

    [ Parent ]

    BTD, I will not be on board with Obama. (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by AX10 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:31:06 PM EST
    I am sick of he and his surrogates, especially the nutroots such s kos/huffpost/ameriblog/air america, etc.
    I do not trust Obama to do what is right if their is a crisis.

    [ Parent ]
    BDT, you have been fighting the good fight (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by befuddled on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:43:18 PM EST
    by which I mean, sticking to fairness and principles and so on. It gives consistency to the dialog that improves it. To realize now how someone you have known for a long time has drifted and hardened into a new attitude is very significant in many ways. It takes longer to notice change in someone you see constantly--has to be a big change that makes you have a readjustment of perceptions. You changed, too.

    I'm totally hardened against Obama now in a matter of two months. Just my opinion, there is no way that it would help the country to elect him and I will pick country over party. I fear his ineptitude backed by a majority in Congress. That's based on his record of work, his education, his associates, his campaign, his words, his body language, his books--he wrote the whole argument, no one else did.

    [ Parent ]

    You're conducting a poll of one or a poll (1.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Seth90212 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:05:40 PM EST
    of a few on a highly partisan (some would say delusional) blog. Real polls tell us that many of Clinton's core demographics are consolidating behind Obama. And when this race ends more of them will do so. You will have a small percentage (including many who frequent this blog) who will never vote for Obama. But then there are former supporters of McCain's opponents who won't vote for him either.

    [ Parent ]
    Could we get a poll for Seth going? (5.00 / 3) (#92)
    by echinopsia on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:17:11 PM EST
    I won't vote for Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    I won't vote for Obama (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by zfran on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:21:01 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    My petition (5.00 / 0) (#103)
    by madamab on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:22:44 PM EST
    has 183 signatures so far. (I'm not asking people not to vote for Obama OR to vote for McCain, but rather saying that Hillary should be the nominee or McCain will be our next President.)

    Can we add those to the list?

    [ Parent ]

    I am NOT conducting a poll (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:20:39 PM EST
    I am telling you about MY experiences with one voter.

    If you want to point to polls, you MUST know it is even worse for your argument as the number of clinton supporters who say they will not vote for Obama is alarmingly high. Of course I also think those number are overstated. But the margins matter.

    You need to calm down.

    [ Parent ]

    Who should calm down? (5.00 / 0) (#101)
    by zfran on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:22:23 PM EST
    I am perfectly calm and collected and cool.

    [ Parent ]
    Seth (none / 0) (#111)
    by echinopsia on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:27:10 PM EST
    (click on "parent" to see which post is being responded to)

    [ Parent ]
    I bet it's between 15 and 20% (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Shainzona on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:29:08 PM EST
    of HRC supporters who will not vote for Obama.

    That's going to be a big problem in the GE.  Even 10% is a problem.

    [ Parent ]

    What was the percentage of Romney (none / 0) (#126)
    by Seth90212 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:36:12 PM EST
    voters who wouldn't vote for McCain? What is the percentage now? What was the percentage of McCain voters who wouldn't vote for Bush? What was the percentage in Nov 00? So while there will always be a hardcore who won't vote for Obama, I expect that percentage to decline as the raw nerves abate. I would gladly vote for Clinton had she been the nominee. It's a rational choice. Most Clinton supporters are going to make the same rational choice.

    [ Parent ]
    No - and I'll tell you why. (5.00 / 3) (#141)
    by echinopsia on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:52:47 PM EST
    It is NOT a rational choice to vote for a candidate who you feel is inexperienced, does not stand firmly for Democratic values, and disregards the importance of winning and representing the Democratic base.

    We are serious. We are many. We are resolved, and we are NOT going to "come around" by November.

    We won't vote for Obama.

    Take it to the bank.

    [ Parent ]

    How is it rational... (none / 0) (#161)
    by Sleeper on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:49:23 PM EST
    ...to say that Obama won't get your vote because he is insufficiently progressive, and then to hope for and by action or inaction contribute to the victory of a far-right-wing tax-slashing warmonger?

    Even if you personally despise Obama, I mean on a personal level (as many Democrats this year feel about one of the two candidates), to say that he would be less progressive than John "Bomb Iran" McCain is to be detached from reality.  I don't know how any Dem could defend that.  And the same goes for Obama supporters threatening to vote against Clinton.

    [ Parent ]

    The word "progressive" (none / 0) (#168)
    by echinopsia on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:48:44 PM EST
    Does not appear in my post.

    [ Parent ]
    Duly noted (none / 0) (#169)
    by Sleeper on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:55:36 PM EST
    It was a paraphrasing, of course.

    Substituting your exact wording for mine, then, would you care to offer an answer?

    [ Parent ]

    Democrats &ne; Progressives (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by echinopsia on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:51:21 PM EST
    I've seen what the "progressives" have said and done in this election. What they say they stand for and what they do are not the same.

    Democrats:

    Do not call other Democrats racists in order to get votes.

    Democrats speak out against sexism and misogyny - against all forms of bigotry, not just racism. Even if it's your opponent. Even if you can't stand her.

    Democrats care about the issues of the working class of all colors.

    Democrats do not write off huge swaths of voters in the Democratic core constituency - women, Hispanics, older people, working class people - and insult them.

    Democrats do not say SS is in crisis.

    Democrats do not pander to anti-choicers.

    A Democrat would never even consider voting to confirm SCJ Roberts.

    Democrats are for universal health care, and they don't run ads against it.

    Democrats do not blame Democrats and Republicans equally for the mess we're in and for partisan rancor.

    Democrats count all the votes.

    I could go on. But I think you get the idea.

    Obama is not a Democrat. If he is nominated, the Democratic Party no longer stands for Democratic values, and I am no longer a Democrat.

    I don't owe the Party my vote if the Party isn't going to represent and fight for what's important to me. Voting for Obama would only reward the Party for his and its bad behavior, and I will not do it. This Party has taken advantage of women's votes for too long.

    [ Parent ]

    Thank you for your answer (none / 0) (#172)
    by Sleeper on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:56:54 PM EST
    I myself was not too crazy about Obama's less comprehensive health care plan, it was one of the reasons I switched to Clinton after Edwards dropped out.

    To hold Obama responsible for every sexist or borderline sexist comment made by lunkhead pundits, annoying frat boy supporters, etc., is just as unfair as blaming Clinton for the 20-30% of voters in WV and KY who openly admitted in exit polls that they didn't vote for Obama because of his race.  Both instincts are unfair and self-defeating.

    I just think it's crazy to say that we can get a fairer shake with McCain than Obama.  The idea that a Democratic Congress will keep McCain in place is foolish, considering the last 7 years.  All this talk that Obama is so reprehensible, so antithetical to Democratic ideals...BUT John McCain isn't so bad and we should support him, directly or indirectly...just smacks of anger over Clinton's loss.  And anger might be therapeutic and justifiable, but it doesn't help the country any.  I just would ask Clinton supporters, of which I think there might be a few on this blog, to consider this before voting McCain or staying home.

    I offer this respectfully, not intending to condescend or offend anyone.  Thanks again for your thoughtful and lengthy response to my question.

    [ Parent ]

    Let's be clear. (none / 0) (#173)
    by echinopsia on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:13:50 PM EST
    hold Obama responsible for every sexist or borderline sexist comment made by lunkhead pundits, annoying frat boy supporters, etc

    I hold him responsible for his own and his surrogates' sexist remarks. I hold him responsible for calling other Democrats racist.

    I do not hold him responsible for sexist and misogynist remarks made by supporters.

    I DO hold him responsible for not speaking out against them.

    We may not get a fairer shake with McCain than Obama - I don't really know.

    All I know is that I refuse to be loyal to a party that has not been loyal to me. If that means McCain wins, so be it.

    That may be what it takes to make the Democrats for Obama wake up and realize you can't tolerate sexism and expect women to go along nicely.

    [ Parent ]

    Re: Let's be clear. (none / 0) (#174)
    by Sleeper on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:49:15 PM EST
    I'm starting to think that to some voters, the very act of Obama defeating Clinton is a sexist affront for which there can be no forgiveness.

    I'm sorry for whatever stupid sexist remarks people have made about Clinton.  I voted for her, and I don't appreciate people making those remarks.  I also don't appreciate the racism coming from some Clinton supporters, and to ignore that is to be willfully blind.  Exit polls in WV and KY showed people admitting it openly and unashamedly.  And I think that to say that McCain "may" be better than Obama, who knows, is also willfully blind, and dangerous.

    I know that diehard Clinton supporters don't want to hear that, and seem to delight in taking umbrage that anyone would try to "blackmail" them into voting Obama.  But whatever.  At this point I've about had it with people on both sides looking to find offense around every corner.  blah.

    [ Parent ]

    Bull$hit (none / 0) (#175)
    by echinopsia on Sat May 24, 2008 at 12:29:18 AM EST
    I'm starting to think that to some voters, the very act of Obama defeating Clinton is a sexist affront for which there can be no forgiveness.

    I didn't say anything like that and you know it.

    If he were a Democrat, if his surrogates and supporters were Democrats, they would not only decry but not make the sexist and misogynist remarks that have sullied this campaign.

    And he has not defeated her. He never will.

    I also don't appreciate the racism coming from some Clinton supporters, and to ignore that is to be willfully blind.  Exit polls in WV and KY showed people admitting it openly and unashamedly.  

    Bull$hit.

    I tell you what - do an exit poll asking black voters to what extent race influenced their votes. Or of all voters how gender influenced their votes.

    People in Tennessee elected Harold Ford. They also voted for Hillary Clinton. Are they all racists?

    It is simply despicable to accuse any Democrat of racism for preferring Hillary Clinton.

    You have now lost all credibility with me.

    [ Parent ]

    And furthermore (none / 0) (#176)
    by echinopsia on Sat May 24, 2008 at 12:36:09 AM EST
    you have cemented, set in stone, and ironclad my determination NOT to vote for Obama. Under any circumstances.

    Congratulations.

    Go forth and convince more people never to vote for him. You're doing a great job.

    [ Parent ]

    Re: And furthermore (none / 0) (#177)
    by Sleeper on Sat May 24, 2008 at 02:14:23 AM EST
    This is simply dishonest.  Anyone who would vote in a presidential election based on a comment they read on a blog is either mentally unstable, or lying.

    Your attitude makes it pretty obvious that you had decided to never vote for Obama long, long before you ever read anything I wrote.  So why be dishonest?  Why blame it on something I wrote?

    I think it's remarkably petty to say things like this.  If it makes you feel better, fine.

    [ Parent ]

    Read what I wrote. (none / 0) (#179)
    by echinopsia on Sat May 24, 2008 at 12:41:53 PM EST
    You seem to have a real problem with reading comprehension and logic, or else you're a really bad debater.

    I didn't say you made up my mind. I said you solidified my resolve.

    So who's lying? I'd say you, for repeatedly ignoring what I really said and "paraphrasing" my words into something entirely different, starting with substituting progressive for Democrat.

    You're essentially arguing with things I did not say. That's called, in logic and debate, setting up a straw man.

    I'm not falling for it. Honest people do not resort to it.


    [ Parent ]

    Re: (none / 0) (#178)
    by Sleeper on Sat May 24, 2008 at 02:56:55 AM EST
    If he were a Democrat, if his surrogates and supporters were Democrats, they would not only decry but not make the sexist and misogynist remarks that have sullied this campaign.

    I think the sexism from the media has far outweighed the sexism from the "Obama camp," meaning the official campaign, endorsers, and people supporting him.  I'm talking about the Chris Matthewses and Tim Russerts and such.  And their comments are tinged with the fact that many of them owe their careers to the orgy of Clinton-bashing from ten years.

    There are, of course, dopes who shout silly comments like "Iron my shirts" at rallies.  These people are morons and should be mocked regularly.  Every political movement has them.  They're regrettable but they're largely aberrant.  You will not agree with me, but that's how I see it.

    "I also don't appreciate the racism coming from some Clinton supporters, and to ignore that is to be willfully blind.  Exit polls in WV and KY showed people admitting it openly and unashamedly."

    Bull$hit.

    CNN: "Twenty-one percent of all respondents and 19 percent of whites said race was a factor, and 7 percent of all voters said it was the most important factor."
    International Herald Tribune: "Two in 10 white West Virginia voters said race was an important factor in their votes."
    National Journal: "Roughly one out of every five white Democratic primary voters in West Virginia said race was a factor in how they decided to cast their ballots, and more than 80 percent of them voted for Clinton."
    And on and on and on.  And these were the people who openly admitted it.
    It is not racist to be white and vote for Clinton, but to say B.S. on any racism in this race is ridiculous.

    I tell you what - do an exit poll asking black voters to what extent race influenced their votes. Or of all voters how gender influenced their votes.

    Right, because black voters only vote for black candidates, that must explain how many black nominees the Democratic Party has had.

    Gender has played a huge influence in this contest, and it's mostly for women voting for Clinton.  There's nothing wrong with that, just as there's nothing wrong about black voters feeling proud to vote for Obama as their preferred candidate.  The problem is when constituencies insist it's their candidate or they will rip the party in half, as a small number of Clinton supporters are suggesting.

    People in Tennessee elected Harold Ford. They also voted for Hillary Clinton. Are they all racists?

    No, Tennessee's 9th congressional district elected Ford.  It's in downtown Memphis and is mostly black.  Statewide, the people rejected Ford in 2006 (our year) owing in large part to racist smears like the infamous "Call me" ad playing on concerns of miscegenation.  This is not really a good contrasting example for your case.

    It is simply despicable to accuse any Democrat of racism for preferring Hillary Clinton.

    Not "any" Democrat.  Just sizable groups of them in states like WV and KY, as they freely admitted in exit polls.  Kind of difficult to deny.

    [ Parent ]

    Bull$hit II (none / 0) (#180)
    by echinopsia on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:12:00 PM EST
    >I think the sexism from the media has far outweighed the sexism from the "Obama camp," meaning the official campaign, endorsers, and people supporting him.

    The point is that he should speak out against it no matter where it comes from. You think he'd not speak out against racism regardless of the source? Or that Hillary would not? Guess again.

    >Right, because black voters only vote for black candidates,

    Not what I said, and irrelevant to the discussion.

    >The problem is when constituencies insist it's their candidate or they will rip the party in half,

    Like this? "I am confident I will get her votes if I'm the nominee," Obama stressed. "It's not clear she would get the votes I got if she were the nominee."

    >  Statewide, the people rejected Ford in 2006

    With 48% of the statewide popular vote for Senator. Damn, that's a lot of nonracists.

    Also, from riverdaughter:

    If 20% of Kentuckians won't vote based on race, that must mean that 80% were more than willing to overlook race to vote for the candidate who appeals to them in some other way. THAT means that if Barack Obama had spent some time actually talking to some of the working class voters in Kentucky about what is important to them, he might not have lost the state by a humiliating 35%. So, what are we to conclude from this? If it is true that 20% of Kentuckians are racists, Obama wasted a perfectly good chance to score with a vast majority of DEMOCRATS in Kentucky and this is a conscious decision he is making that has nothing to do with race.


    [ Parent ]
    Look, I know a number (none / 0) (#151)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:14:01 PM EST
    of "real to the bone Democrats" who will not do it and the talk of submission is making them angrier.  I know it does me.  

    [ Parent ]
    What is the basis for your last sentence? (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by oculus on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:02:41 PM EST
    As to who will or will not vote for Obama if he is the nominee, I will, based on SCOTUS considerations.  But many, many people who comment here have definitively stated they will not vote for Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    From what I've read on what (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by zfran on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:29:40 PM EST
    Obama says about scotus, he would appoint judges who are "sensitive" to women and gays. Not exactly a resounding "I will protect a woman's right to choose". Whatever you feel about that, that seems to be a position of his.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm not happy about his waffliness. But (none / 0) (#122)
    by oculus on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:32:10 PM EST
    McCain is firmly and consistently right-to-life.

    [ Parent ]
    As for who is and isn;t solidly on board (5.00 / 0) (#73)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:04:56 PM EST
    The margins matter. Unless you are one of those who think Obama wins 40 states and 58% of the vote.

    [ Parent ]
    40 state sweep (none / 0) (#159)
    by Sleeper on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:45:14 PM EST
    If there's some nightmare meltdown scandal from Bush (maybe Rove-related), there might be a Democratic Tsunami that makes 2006 look feeble in comparison.  But short of that, I think an Obama or Clinton 40-state sweep is pretty unrealistic.  And I think most other Obama supporters would agree with me.

    I don't think a 30-35 state sweep is totally unrealistic though, for either Democrat.

    [ Parent ]

    Please provide some evidence of (5.00 / 3) (#80)
    by zfran on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:08:45 PM EST
    Hispanics coming onboard? And, what do you mean by "the vast majority"

    [ Parent ]
    Try this (none / 0) (#104)
    by Seth90212 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:23:13 PM EST
    From US News:

    Obama, meanwhile, seems to be making strides across nearly every constituency. If the general election were held today, 54 percent of Californians say they would vote for him, compared with 37 percent for McCain. That gap has widened by 8 points since March. Obama enjoys the support of more than 80 percent of Democrats here, along with over half (55 percent) of independents. He leads McCain among men and women and is viewed favorably by nearly 70 percent of Latinos--a powerful political group, experts note, not just in California but in several other western states, including Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada.

    While there has been an epidemic of hand-wringing among Democratic political analysts over Obama's inability to win over low-income white voters in states like Kentucky and West Virginia, where Clinton has dominated recent primaries, California seems to be a different story. Obama leads McCain by a double-digit margin here among likely voters, no matter what their incomes. He enjoys a 55-to-35 percent lead among those who make less than $40,000 a year, including whites; a 55-to-36 percent lead among those who make between $40,000 and $80,000; and a 53-to-37 percent lead among those who make $80,000 or more.



    [ Parent ]
    One poll? (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by madamab on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:25:26 PM EST
    One that will be completely contradicted in about an hour and a half?

    Wow.

    [ Parent ]

    "seems to be making" (none / 0) (#152)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:16:16 PM EST
    strides"  I guess that is like, he almost has it, trust him, he will.  

    [ Parent ]
    lets see what the LA times poll (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:29:50 PM EST
    says at 5pm

    [ Parent ]