Obama Calls FL/MI A Clinton-Contrived Controversy

To Barack Obama, the stripping of the Florida and Michigan delegations is just some contrived controversy driven by Hillary Clinton. 2.3 million voters? Counting the votes? They mean nothing. Obama last night said:

Democrat Barack Obama accused rival Hillary Clinton on Saturday of "stirring up" a controversy over the disqualified Florida primary election because it was her last hope of winning their party's presidential nomination.

Wow! Talk about belittling the voters of Florida and Michigan. Obama continued:

"The Clinton campaign has been stirring this up for fairly transparent reasons," Obama told reporters on the plane from San Juan, Puerto Rico, to Chicago, adding she had not done so earlier in the race when she did not need the delegates to win. "Let's not ... pretend that we don't know what's going on. I mean this is, from their perspective, their last slender hope to make arguments about how they can win, and I understand that," Obama said.

That's all Florida and Michigan mean to Obama? I know that the Media has no qualms showing contempt for Florida and Michigan. It is shocking to me that Obama is willing to state publically he feels the same way. MORE . . .

As for what he really thinks about healing the Party, Obama takes it for granted:

"I think that anger will go away once it's resolved," he said, questioning whether those who were upset were only Clinton supporters or other voters as well. "I want to make the Florida delegates seated. And once they're seated, then I think this is going to be a story that nobody's thinking about come August."


By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

Comments closed

< Hillary Picks Up Guam and Georgia Delegate | Hubris >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    And this might be our new "candidate of (5.00 / 6) (#1)
    by zfran on Sun May 25, 2008 at 08:57:20 AM EST
    change." The only thing that's apparently changed is Obama himself. Instead of "changing" the country for the better, he's "changing" himself for the worst.

    He never was (5.00 / 7) (#117)
    by cal1942 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:36:35 AM EST
    going to change the country for the better.  He's proven he knows nothing about the country.  The campaign was all about him.

    It's not possible to change the nation without shedding blood.  If he really thinks otherwise then he's too stupid to be President.


    Okay, BTD (5.00 / 18) (#2)
    by Kathy on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:00:35 AM EST
    now you have it straight from the horse's mouth.  Do you really think he's (1) going for the unity ticket (2) going to do right by FL and MI and (3) not a poopy pants?

    I mean, honestly.  He has a LIFETIME of this sort of thing.  Every biography about him, even his own, talks about how he burns bridges as he moves up the next rung (sorry, mixed metaphor)

    What in this statement, for instance, makes you think he is actively reaching out to win Clinton's voters?

    Same old NOTHING (5.00 / 7) (#38)
    by Stellaaa on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:26:32 AM EST
     of a candidate.  Now tell me what the difference is between Obama and McCain ?

    McCain is honest about his convictions. (5.00 / 7) (#45)
    by BrandingIron on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:28:50 AM EST

    For the most part.  And I can't imagine him not peeing his pants in anticipation of beating the pants off of Obama in the GE if it gets to that point.

    LOL (none / 0) (#144)
    by Faust on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:20:28 AM EST
    You've got to be kidding me.

    McCain (5.00 / 5) (#65)
    by befuddled on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:41:48 AM EST
    Would probably stand up for FL and MI.

    Of (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by kenoshaMarge on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:46:37 AM EST
    course he would because it would make Obama look bad. Nothing like handing the GOP their talking points.

    McCain is even worse (none / 0) (#193)
    by joanneleon on Sun May 25, 2008 at 02:03:11 PM EST
    He cares nothing for the people.  For God's sake, he just stood against the GI Bill and then failed to show up to even vote against it, so he couldn't be fully held accountable.

    So, right now, McCain might stand up for FL and MI, but only because it wouldn't make any difference to his candidacy and because it's an opportunity to hurt Obama politically.

    In short, McCain is the wrong person to be holding up as an example for anything when it comes to principles and standing up for what's right.


    Well (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:18:29 PM EST
    McCain is nicer to Hillary. Yeah, I know he has ulterior motives but you would think that Obama would too.

    A Story No One Is Going To Think About In Aug? (5.00 / 13) (#4)
    by MO Blue on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:03:32 AM EST
    I guess McCain and the Republicans are going to drop out by Aug. If not, I guess they would never, ever think of reminding voters in FL and MI that Obama was willing to disenfranchise them or change the results of the election to win the nomination.

    reply to ::A Story No One Is Going To Think About (5.00 / 9) (#100)
    by fly on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:14:03 AM EST
    no one has to remind us in Florida..we are very angry..and i don't see that changing anytime soon..remember seniors vote..and Obama will never ever get the votes in Florida..won't happen.

    In fact most of the dems i know..all lifelong dems..say they will switch over to McCain should Obama steal this nomination..

    end of story..these are all donating and working dems..i am speaking of...not college kids..


    Apparently they don't know (5.00 / 5) (#104)
    by kredwyn on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:18:38 AM EST
    about this mailer that went out during the primaries:  
    "The Democrats in Washington are out of touch," the mailer reads in part. "Now -- thanks to their egoes and political in-fighting -- yes, as a Florida Democrat, may lose your vote."

    Other boldface reminders: "No delegates. No votes." "Because of the Democrat rules, Democratic presidential candidates say they won't campaign in Florida--they'll only raise money here."

    But hey...I'm certain that the Republicans will drop the subject as unimportant if he becomes the nominee.

    They won't use his own memos telling Fla that it doesn't count against him.



    Yup (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by cal1942 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:51:01 AM EST
    too stupid to be President.

    GOP would be stupid not to use it. (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by ghost2 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:46:38 AM EST
    Imagine at the GOP convention, they ask Florida delegates to stand with McCain.  Balloons will drop.  There will be a huge show of this with nation wide audience.  Didn't he win Florida and take the lead then?

    They'd be stupid not to use the visuals at their convention.


    It is truly amazing (1.00 / 1) (#188)
    by jollyf on Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:35:35 PM EST
    that almost all of these post are filled with selfish irresponsible statements. Not one of these post gives Hillary any of the credit for helping this mess start in the first place. It is all about how wrong Obama is and he is this, he is that, but none of you think Hillary should have any blame in this matter.

    Hillary initially supported this disenfranchisement that you all around the county calls it. How many of you are from FL or MI? Not many is my guess.

    I am a Floridian and I should have more of a right to feel disenfranchised since it is my state that you are discussing, you know what, I don't feel disenfranchised at all. We as Floridians were well aware of what happened prior to voting, and many did not vote at all if they did not own a home, since there was a very important tax issue on the ballot, which is why many came out. This is why our voter turn out was less than it has been in previous years.

    I agree wholeheartedly with Senator Obama, Senator Clinton, made this a larger issue than had to be, only because of her desperation to win. You know the only people that complain and make threats about being disenfranchised, Clinton supporters, you are the only ones period.

    I understand her desire to win, and I understand your desire for her to win, but the fact of the matter is, if us Floridians were so angry and felt disenfranchised and felt our civil rights were being taken away, Senator Obama would not have gotten the crowd he did here in Florida.

    Now you threaten to not support the democratic nominee under the false pretenses that he alone has disenfranchised Fl and MI. You all should be ashamed of yourselves for promoting the lie about how Florida feels for one and promoting such a disastrous result for the country because you don't get your way, like little children.

    When will you grow up and take responsibility for this country and do what it right? When will you wisen up and put the blame where it should be, if at all.  This is not an Obama creation, it is a DNC, Obama, Hillary, and the other candidates that signed off on it creation.

    If you all choose to vote for McCain or stay home, that is truly your choice. But all this blame and cry baby activity is ridiculous.

    I thought we are voting to get a democrat in the WH, to help our own lives become better, to get the military out of Irag, for a better economy, and to ensure that we would not have another republican control our country. It no longer seems that way, it seems that we have become the person we support and the country can just go to hell because mommy did not buy you the white pair of tennis shoes you wanted do desperately!

    What a joke this entire process has become, and what a joke to see what individuals that started out wanting to fix this country has become.

    Women against men, black against white, latino, this or that, we are seriously in trouble. Obama and Clinton will be just fine I suppose. It will be us, the ones struggling to keep our families together, to keep our homes, cars, and jobs, the will be the only losers this year.

    But I guess you can all feel proud about that, at least you can say you stood up to destroy the country boldly.

    Have a great life, if you can!


    Desperation is forbidding people's votes (5.00 / 3) (#195)
    by andrys on Sun May 25, 2008 at 02:21:12 PM EST
    in order to win.  
    Obama is not using the rules that allow penalties to be modified, and he's not going for re-votes because of his fear of the effect of the vote results on his nomination.

     In other words, the 'desperation' to win that you speak of is most evident in the candidate who resists allowing three  million people's votes to count, in two states that we NEED in November or you and we get President McCain.

      Obama's starting to throw up trial balloons about allowing half the delegation in Florida, but in Michigan one version is his wanting the Michigan's total Uncommitted vote -- and even when voting, that category was to go to the convention Uncommitted. Duh.   Already, they've chosen the delegates who would go, if a compromise is reached, and they ARE Obama supporters (as requested in radio ads at that time).  So that should work, as I said in another note.

      In Florida Obama DID run tv campaign ads for two weeks, and toward the end of that period, several times a day, just before voting in Florida.  He also gave a press conference before being reminded that was against the rules.
    Under the 'rules' he would then get 0 votes, but no one I know would be so insistent on these arbitrary rules.

      He got a pass on both of these.  Florida knew him as much as I did and do.  Through tv and newspaspers -- that's usually the way it is.  And, contrary to his braggadocio, his appearing in states does NOT automatically cause people to choose him instead.  While showing up can help the margin, he outspent Hillary 3-1 in Pennsylvania, was there constantly, and still lost the state to her.  The margin in Indiana was small but he still lost it but was there constantly and outspent her.  This was true of every large-state primary we needed after Wisconsin vote in late February until he finally won North Carolina in May.  

      Current polls show McCain beating Obama in North Carolina, while Clinton beats McCain by about 8 points, currently.  Well, 'currently' is all we have for now, but Obama is our presumptive nominee and really should be doing better.


    spare me the 'tude (5.00 / 2) (#199)
    by DFLer on Sun May 25, 2008 at 02:49:34 PM EST
    Please read the posts of other Floridians here, especially Fly.

    Then review your own post for the whine factor, for example:

    because mommy did not buy you the white pair of tennis shoes you wanted do desperately!

    Is that all you have to worry about? wow! who's the crybaby?

    There are REAL concerns being discussed here, seriously...and the main one is that because of these shenanigans, and lack of leadership by Obama and his campaign, we are in danger of losing the WH. and FLA in the GE. Don't you get it?

    you said:

    Have a great life, if you can!

    Thanks....sounds like a farewell, I hope.


    Believable (5.00 / 18) (#5)
    by andgarden on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:04:05 AM EST
    It's his MO that reconciliation will happen on Obama's terms. It's one of his most long term and infuriation characteristics, and essentially what turned me away from him in the first place.

    I think polling (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Salo on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:16:16 AM EST
    in Michigan is poor for Obama.

    IS that still the case or is he doing okay there?


    Rasmussen 5/6 Poll For MI (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by MO Blue on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:23:31 AM EST
    McCain  45%  Obama 44%

    jeezus (none / 0) (#42)
    by Salo on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:27:49 AM EST
    Although McCain is beating Clinton there I think.

    Is this a typical early poll for Michigan?


    No Clinton Ties McCain In Same Poll (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by MO Blue on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:57:58 AM EST
    44% to 44%.

    Kerry won MI 51% to 48% just as a reference point. IMO the debacle of counting votes in MI is making it harder for a Dem to win MI.


    Good polling resource here - (none / 0) (#84)
    by minordomo on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:58:41 AM EST
    - also state by state: www.pollster.com

    He has not (1.00 / 1) (#190)
    by jollyf on Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:44:11 PM EST
    attempted to have anything his way, except for running an efficient campaign his way. The only people that seems to want things on their terms are Hillary and her supporters.

    You want her to win on your terms, not the well established rules of the party that has allowed others to win, like Bill Clinton, using the same rules. Now somehow those rules are defunct and only your rules should apply.

    Maybe his self confidence and pose, as well as oratory skills are what turned you off, but certainly it could not be his "infuriation characteristics," Maybe his gender turned you off, or maybe was just he common Clinton name that turned you on, who knows.


    the true obama (5.00 / 18) (#8)
    by neilario on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:05:48 AM EST
    i think what is interesting here is that it shows the true obama. many of his supporters, including BTD, i think have projected an image onto BO that is wishful. Oh, he is a uniter... oh he will expand the map... oh he really isnt this arrogant... yes of course he cares for the voters.... etc

    Yet, time and time again he shows his true self. and this is why HRC supporters [ such as myself] are so adamant about this race continuing. once there is more time for BO to truly show himself i beleiev he will be soundly rejected. simply because he does not care about the voters, he cares about his power. and he is willing to do anything - note the ridiculous rfk controversy he pushed. ... and so much more.

    he will not expand the electorial map. hominid.com shows she has a 99.9% chance of beating mccain. women repubs are voicing their willingness to cross to dem to vote for a woman PLUS she has all the critical dem base plus soundly for her. he is sinking like a concrete slab ad has a 32% chance to win in the same probability study.

    Yes, he does not care about fl or mi. and no he does not recognize the amount of anger and backlash waiting for him because he sees only his image wherever he looks. it is always about him and he will be decimated in nov if the dems decide on this course. and that makes me sad.

    when he talks about the (5.00 / 11) (#23)
    by Salo on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:18:15 AM EST
    issues IObama always delivers in a dry unconnected way.

    He gets animated only when he's talking about his career.

    It's uncanny.


    A Man (5.00 / 5) (#150)
    by cal1942 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:29:45 AM EST
    of no conviction, save his own promotion, has difficulty discussing issues.  He could care less, his heart's not in it and it shows.

    For the gazillionth and one time see the story of the Roberts confirmation for all you need to know about Obama.


    I want this to go to August but I think it will be (5.00 / 9) (#37)
    by Angel on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:26:07 AM EST
    wrapped up by June.  If so, it will be too late for people to really know the true Obama.  Guess we'll have to let the republicans do the nasty work.  Hillary, her supporters, and the entire country and the world lose because we have party leaders who hate Hillary (and women?) If Obama should somehow win over McCain, I predict a monumental disaster worse than Jimmy Carter.  Mark my words.  



    August (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by andrys on Sun May 25, 2008 at 02:27:05 PM EST
    If some horrific trait shows up that Dems can't accept, then the superdelegates can change their minds at the convention in August.  



    He doesn't care (5.00 / 6) (#137)
    by cal1942 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:05:17 AM EST
    about Fl and MI because they stand in the way of his coronation.  They expand the number of delegates needed to win and Hillary Clinton won both states.

    It's all scorched earth to try to win the nomination.

    Call Hillary Clinton divisive and polarizing, accuse her of racism.  Resist counting large vital states; anything to win the nomination and the GE?  That's all wishful thinking.


    You know (5.00 / 19) (#9)
    by Kathy on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:06:38 AM EST
    it's extremely hypocritical to accuse her of "gaming" the system, considering what he did to Alice Palmer and how he bullied his way through the caucuses.

    Sort of his hallmark move at this point, though--trashing people for doing the same thing he's doing?

    Hasn't taken Clinton out yet.  She's still fighting back.  Rise, Hillary, Rise!

    Yup (5.00 / 12) (#10)
    by andgarden on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:07:46 AM EST
    This is his other MO:

    trashing people for doing the same thing he's doing?

    And what's so infuriating is that he ALWAYS gets away with it.


    McCain won't let him (4.82 / 17) (#14)
    by Kathy on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:11:14 AM EST
    He's already shown that he's going to slap down Obama every time he tries that crap.  Clinton wouldn't do it because she had to keep the SDs in mind, who were telling her to be ladylike and smile more, because it was "unseemly" for her to go after "beauty contests" like FL.

    That she has survived this long under those rules makes me want to fight even harder for her.  I am so glad she is still in this.  All Obama's words tell me is that he thinks he might lose FL and MI to Clinton (again) after the 31st, so he's setting up the narrative that it doesn't matter.

    If it didn't matter, he wouldn't be saying arrogant crap like this to reporters.


    Bubble (5.00 / 10) (#34)
    by RalphB on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:24:47 AM EST
    From my standpoint, it appears that Obama is deep in his own sycophantic bubble much like the vaunted Bush bubble.  With his thin skin he probably doesn't hear many discouraging words, so he may believe his own BS.

    I have very few complaints about the campaign that Clinton has run, especially since Penn disappeared.  However, she really should have attacked him much harder and often.  Playing by the 'rulez' has hurt her a great deal.

    Thankfully, McCain doesn't have those rules.


    Attack? She's done much better since (none / 0) (#197)
    by andrys on Sun May 25, 2008 at 02:31:33 PM EST
    Penn left and she followed the advice to be more herself instead of posing as some grim, dominating CIC, since neither men nor women (for the most part) gravitate toward that.

      She's been winning because she's shown she cares about the issues that the voters do and because she is brimming with ideas for solutions.  She gets excited about tackling the problems.  She's connected with the voters.

      I think the negative campaigning ideas of Penn were very bad.


    I frankly assume that it's all over (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by andgarden on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:24:51 AM EST
    and what McCain says will be largely irrelevant. BTD's point about media love stands.

    why doesn't Hillary? (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Josey on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:58:35 AM EST
    mention Obama orchestrating conspiring with other candidates to take their names off the MI ballot to hurt Hillary in Iowa.
    Yes, it would probably be spun as her "making excuses"....

    the general? (none / 0) (#47)
    by Salo on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:29:03 AM EST
    McCain's senior advisor (none / 0) (#178)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:44:29 PM EST
    has already called Obama out on this exact tactic. He called it the politics of hypocrisy, the oldest style of politics there is. It got lots of attention the day it came out, and will certainly be repeated over and over if they need it in the GE.

    Of course, if the Democratic nominee is Hillary, they don't need it.


    Yet another bit of tangible evidence (5.00 / 5) (#12)
    by befuddled on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:09:15 AM EST
    that he is not the candidate of anything but spin. In this instance he may actually know that FL and MI are lost to him and he's trying (again) to project and misdirect the bad results to Clinton's camp. Honestly, if FL and MI don't count, why would anything in the country matter to him? It reminds me of that old quote "I didn't speak up for the Catholics, Jews, etc.... When they came for me there was no one to speak up."

    Obamamites often say (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Josey on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:03:25 AM EST
    Obama doesn't need to win FL to win the general.
    So, perhaps FL was never on his "winning" GE map?
    But are there enough Blacks, Kidz, and latte sippers in North Carolina and Montana to make up the difference?

    OT - current Montana and SD polls?


    OT (5.00 / 2) (#136)
    by annac1aire on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:00:37 AM EST
    I live in MT and come from SD - I've seen no recent polls about the primary or the general.  

    My suspicion is that Hillary is hoping to pull off an upset in SD.  


    There aren't (5.00 / 2) (#151)
    by cal1942 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:35:31 AM EST
    enough electoral votes in Montana and North Carolina combined to make up for Florida.

    Florida = 27

    North Carolina + Montana = 18

    And their aren't enough winos in NC or MT to carry either state. So scratch the 18.


    Not to mention that in North Carolina (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by andrys on Sun May 25, 2008 at 02:40:38 PM EST
    current polls of matches with McCain show Obama losing to McCain there while Clinton is ahead of McCain by 8 points.

    When you need to factor in the other party's humans, it's not the same as when you're running against someone from your own party.

      I think I found one reason Clinton does better against McCain in most of the states in current polling matches.  Republican forumners are writing that while they hated Clinton for 8 years, they are impressed by her kick-a** ways, and some say while they wouldn't vote for her, they would not vote for McCain because he's 'ruining' the party.  They nix the idea of Obama because of how they feel about his long-time associations -- we're talking about very conservative people.

      In the meantime, I know three Republican women who will vote for Clinton if she's the Dem candidate and let's just say that this is quite surprising to me.


    I lied (5.00 / 2) (#158)
    by annac1aire on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:51:10 AM EST
    should have read the Sunday paper before I commented here.

    A Lee Newspapers poll shows it at Obama 52, Clinton 35 in Montana.  Hillary leads in rural eastern Montana 47-40.  Obama wins big in western MT, which has most of the population and the universities.  

    A general election poll shows McCain 47 Obama 39 and McCain 51 Clinton 40.  


    thanks for the info (none / 0) (#171)
    by Josey on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:05:07 PM EST
    simply ridiculous (5.00 / 17) (#13)
    by RalphB on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:09:35 AM EST
    This whiner has to be one of the worst political thinkers in my lifetime.  In a further delusion, this little jewel is in the story...

    Obama has not called for Clinton to drop out of the race and has been careful to avoid alienating her supporters.

    It must be just my imagination that Hillary's supporters are alienated.  HaHaHa.

    I'd like to see Hillary (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by zfran on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:14:53 AM EST
    call a press conference, using Obama's words against him regarding FL/MI and protest, protest, protest.

    You are assuming it would be covered fairly. (5.00 / 8) (#24)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:19:05 AM EST
    At this point Hillary is doing the only thing she can do, which is go directly to the people. The media will twist everything she says. If she called a press conference they would probably just ask her over and over again if she is hoping that someone will...well, you know what they will ask her.

    I'd put up videos and sound (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by zfran on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:21:56 AM EST
    bites of all his flip-flops on all the issues, including this one. If he wants to fight, then I'd give him the fight and send him home with his tail tucked, well you know where!! She seems to intimidate him, so I'd use that. She's been called every name in the book anyway???

    The Iran flip-flop is already on YouTube (none / 0) (#59)
    by befuddled on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:36:57 AM EST
    3 versions as of last night. If you want to get the most "accurate" feel for a trend (and "accurate" is used in the most generous sense on this web of lies), I suggest you do this: Make a point to check about 3 times a day, same times, to the same sample of media outlets, including Google and YouTube. Define your topic and stick to it, e.g. FL delegate. Search for the same thing each time, i.e.  the same key words, or if a website the same page/author. Then get out the old steno pad and keep track. Steel yourself to stay on topic; if a novelty seems to appear, make a new topic and track that. For instance, I've been tracking hits and hit rate on certain YouTube vids, also the tone of the commentators, also the number of new vids on the same topic. You can't see these changes. You can only get a sort of statistical feel for them, but need to be systematic. I think when you take this systematic approach it is calming as well as more productive.

    how can you keep (none / 0) (#76)
    by Kathy on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:52:27 AM EST
    from straying into kitten vids?  Your discipline is amazing.

    Seven real cats! (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by befuddled on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:20:24 AM EST
    I do pick up a lot of novelties, but you have to keep them separate or it all gets muddled. And in my real reason for starting this, conspiracy theories, I might mention that I have seen so much on Obama that hasn't even been mentioned here, this could be the start of the summer blockbuster releases. Why pay MSM for their fantasies when you have YouTube.

    a link to the "best of" (none / 0) (#112)
    by Kathy on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:29:59 AM EST
    would be appreciated.  (cats or Obama blasting--I am equally amused)

    "Best of" (none / 0) (#125)
    by befuddled on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:51:35 AM EST
    How, best of? For me "best of" is a really colorful story, not necessarily the true one. For that try Googling "Zbigniew - Obama - Osama" or "Trilateral -  New World Order" or "Farrakhan - Obama speech" (where Farrakhan rhapsodizes over Obama as the black-white messiah, can just imagine the Christian right with that one). Or, try following up Samantha Powers, Robert Malley and the neo-Libs. If someone isn't out there making Obama into the Tora Bora Islamist oil cartel candidate, I'd be amazed. It's what I'd do if I had a grudge.

    Sadly, I have to say that in reality the Chicago mob conspiracy (get him in the WH to pardon everyone) has a little more realism to it than the others, but it's so darn dull and full of legal points.


    LOL (none / 0) (#86)
    by BrandingIron on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:02:00 AM EST

    I have an entire playlist devoted to kittens on my account.  >__>

    Obama's problem is (5.00 / 4) (#18)
    by gabbyone on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:16:05 AM EST
    that he wants to be the annointed the winner and Hillary actually wants to fight for and win the nomination. Winning has always come easy for Obama because he has been in the right place at the right time. The rest of us have to roll up our sleeves and do the hard work to get what we want. He thinks he can blow off FL, MI, OH, PA, WV, and KY and on an on because after all, he is the "One."

    Winning has come easy for Obama (5.00 / 5) (#99)
    by FlaDemFem on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:10:22 AM EST
    because he has been in the right place at the right time.
    but because he got rid of the competition. He isn't used to having an opponent who can put up a fight. It has only happened once, and he lost. The biggest "fight" he has had to wage in an election was against Alan Keyes, who is just one signature short of being certifiable. When he tried for Bobby Rush's Congressional seat, he got hammered. Then his friends stepped in and manufactured a legislative legacy for him. Obama isn't even competent to win an election against a qualified opponent, for crying out loud, we don't need him in the White House.

    So sleezy! n/t (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by jpete on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:16:39 AM EST

    To quote Jackie Gleason, (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by suki on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:17:51 AM EST
    "Pow, Alice, right in the kisser!"
    Honestly, this does it for me.
    Freaking unbelieveable.

    BTD I Think You Are Beating A Dead Horse (5.00 / 10) (#25)
    by MO Blue on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:19:10 AM EST
    Obama will do nothing to seat FL and MI until he has been declared the nominee.

    I also suspect (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Salo on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:23:08 AM EST
    that btd will be among the first to call for former clinton supporters to knuckle under when obama is crowned.

    After all he was critical of Obama during the primary wasn't he?


    Both BTD And Jeralyn Will Promote (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by MO Blue on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:28:34 AM EST
    party unity once the nominee is selected. They have said so repeatedly. I do hope they continue to critic the election from a political standpoint. IOW what each candidate is doing that is helpful vs harmful to their  campaign etc.



    I will attempt to do both (5.00 / 10) (#50)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:29:54 AM EST
    Indeed, the cheerleading section of the blogs seems well covered.

    Glad To Hear That (5.00 / 3) (#87)
    by MO Blue on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:02:01 AM EST
    I, for one, will appreciate that approach.

    Will anyone accept my admonitions? (none / 0) (#46)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:28:52 AM EST
    Clinton's admonitions? We are reaching the point where the answer is no.

    Read my latest post.


    One thing i've noticed (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by Salo on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:42:40 AM EST
    is that Dukakis has been on the talk circuit, and that he's used some pretty feeble ideas and talking points about Obama.  Smae with Ron Reagan and a number of other liberals  and leftists I like.
      Katrina Vanden Heuvel also seems to be using uncharacteristcially weak arguments too. She was the best debator a few years ago.

    I hope you don't degenerate into an apologist for Obama like them.  


    KVH always struck me (none / 0) (#75)
    by andgarden on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:50:30 AM EST
    as being dim.

    A dim elitist. (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by oldpro on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:06:53 AM EST

    Dim elitists (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by cal1942 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:16:24 AM EST
    I know plenty of them and none of them are in any way elite except in their own minds.

    maybe i was just glamourized (none / 0) (#142)
    by Salo on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:13:01 AM EST
    by the smoking leather clad brunette.

    wouldn't be the first time.


    I think Clinton should say to the press (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by WelshWoman on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:36:31 AM EST
    Why did obama not agree to the re-vote, we both could have both campaign and the people of Michigan and Florida would have had a choice as to who the nominee will be.

    Push back in a subtle way, she needs to raise this issue of the re-vote more IMO.


    OT, (5.00 / 6) (#32)
    by frankly0 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:23:54 AM EST
    But, BTD, you really should post the remarkable graph ultimately from Jay Cost now on the front page of MyDD, showing the number of voters per delegate for Obama vs. Clinton.

    Nothing undermines the argument for the "democracy" of caucuses better than that graph.

    Assuming Hillary ultimate wins the popular vote (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by frankly0 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:26:42 AM EST
    you could put her popular vote win next to that graph and make a very simple, very compelling argument that it is she who, by far, is the morally more deserving candidate to win.

    Actually, looking at the graph (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by frankly0 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:35:17 AM EST
    more carefully, I see it's one of those graphs where the base has truncated off a good portion of the "bar".

    Which of course makes the point less dramatic -- but the disparity still holds between Obama and Clinton.


    It's A Big Mistake (5.00 / 12) (#33)
    by JimWash08 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:24:21 AM EST
    for Obama to walk away from Michigan and Florida at this stage... especially in the same week or week after he finally laid feet on those states.

    I agree that he's just being impatient and wants the nomination right now. He needs to be called out on his wishy-washing demeanor, but of course, the media is tucked in the same bed with him. The media's behavior in this primary is completely reprehensible, but that's a discussion for another day.

    I just want to say though that Hillary's Op'ed "Why I Continue To Run" in this morning's New York Daily News is an extremely powerful article that not only serves to diffuse the hysteria of her recent comment, but she makes her case for MI/FL and how she's more electable.

    I'm a big fan of this blog and I finally got off my butt to make a comment. All you guys rock.

    Good editorial in the same issue (none / 0) (#85)
    by A little night musing on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:00:47 AM EST
    Oops... that title should be (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by A little night musing on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:02:01 AM EST
    "The Hype Against Hillary"

    I need more coffee...


    he sounds like Bush circa 2000 (5.00 / 6) (#39)
    by Salo on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:26:41 AM EST

    Does the mask of of command require the face grow to fit it?

    Or do they share personality traits?

    I've watched Bush since (5.00 / 13) (#69)
    by RalphB on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:45:44 AM EST
    he ran for governor of TX and Obama definitely shares a lot of personality traits with him.  In fact, I'm firmly convinced they're two sides of the same coin.  The thought of an Obama presidency is too repellent for me to consider.

    They two side of the same (none / 0) (#169)
    by LatinoVoter on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:02:43 PM EST
    something but it isn't a coin. It is that famous NY B&W cookie.

    You are more interested in blaming (5.00 / 5) (#41)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:27:17 AM EST
    Clinton for an Obama loss than in an Obama win.

    I wrote about people like you in my latest post.

    Your comment is very timely.

    The hysteriacs surrounding (5.00 / 7) (#54)
    by Salo on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:33:01 AM EST
    Clinton's RFK comments, strongly suggested a lack of overall supporter confidence in Obama's prospects in November.

    It sounds like a deep seated expectation of loss to me.

    putting FL and MI on hold was critical to selecting Obama over Clinton vecause it blunted good results for her and damaged momentum. It also allowed the press to connect her to vanity and beauty contests.  

    Those terms are almost metamysogyny and they are voter disenfranchisement issues as well.


    Well its not as if the voters have ever.... (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:29:14 AM EST
    ...cast their votes on anything but the issues, right? Assuming that voters will not vote against their interests has lost the Democrats many an election in the past.

    Candidate cultism requires (5.00 / 11) (#51)
    by andgarden on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:30:51 AM EST
    that it not be Obama's fault.

    Old Wash Style Politics at its Best (5.00 / 6) (#57)
    by fctchekr on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:34:37 AM EST
    Maybe the crux of the matter is how many of us will vote for him? His camp seems to be fairly confident that Hill supporters will. If Hillary doesn't win and is not VP, it will be interesting to see if the RNC uses this divide to their advantage. They will. Obama can't win without women, white working class voters in swing state, and how many will vote for him, or switch or not vote. If it's a close race, he's in trouble..

    Obama could lose my home state of Massachusetts. (5.00 / 5) (#67)
    by BrandingIron on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:44:57 AM EST

    This is the kind of thing people should be worried about.  Look at that small margin that Obama "beats" McCain in.  Look at the margin Clinton beats McCain in.  It would take just a small tip of the scale for McCain to snatch victory from Obama in my home state, because they're really pissed off about Deval Patrick and they see Obama as Deval 2.0 (particularly after the whole "We're Speechy Twins!" debacle)...and are not eager to see what would happen on a national level with Deval's political twin in the WH.

    I agree. (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by Cassius Chaerea on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:44:07 AM EST
    He won't win here.

    And he can't expect a big vote from progressive activists, because they're the ones that are the most upset at Patrick.


    I agree Obama may well (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by dk on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:05:36 PM EST
    not win Massachusetts (I live here too), but I don't think it's really because of Deval.  Frankly, Deval has much more honor and experience than Obama, even if he's had a rocky start here.

    Obama may well lose Massachusetts because Massachusetts is the home of real Democrats who see Obama for what he is.


    My worry (none / 0) (#194)
    by IzikLA on Sun May 25, 2008 at 02:19:23 PM EST
    Is that if McCain chooses Romney as his running mate, he can pretty much kiss MA and those western swing states goodbye.

    Obama will lose the state of Michigan (5.00 / 5) (#111)
    by Bob Boardman on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:29:04 AM EST
    We've seen this brand of patronage politics before. It looks like the same old politics of taking care of yourself and your friends.

    If Obama (5.00 / 4) (#156)
    by cal1942 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:47:11 AM EST
    wins the nomination and selects Hillary as VP I still won't vote for him.

    I would hope she'd refuse to take second place.  Taking second place would eliminate a public servant the nation needs.


    I guess Obama needs to (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by zfran on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:37:40 AM EST
    see Recount tonight to remember it's Florida, Florida, Florida (and Michigan). Maybe someone will be able to send him a copy!!!

    Hm (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by BrandingIron on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:39:31 AM EST

    who's going to be making Supreme Court appointments

    Well it's not going to look good for him when McCain points out that Obama was FOR Roberts before he voted against him out of political expedience.

    In fact, Obama's probably a Dem only out of political expedience.  He's done nothing for the Democratic party, promised them nothing/doesn't care that he has passively let the party become fractured because of his candidacy, extols the virtues of the Reagan Era and has shown support for Republican ideals (Roberts, Cheney Energy bill, etc.).  I believe the only reason he isn't a Republican is because black Republicans just aren't politically viable.

    Just FYI, I came to my conclusion about this after reading Larry Elders's book, Stupid Black Men.  Elders is a black Libertarian radio show host who supported Obama up until the Wright thing exploded.  He wrote in this book that blacks always stand firm for the black Democrat/shun the black Republican...and it sure seems he's got the facts to back it up.  It's a well-sourced book and while I don't agree with everything he wrote in it and I find some chapters lacking, he does make an excellent point about AAs in politics and the support of black Republicans vs. black Democrats in current politics.

    Yikes (none / 0) (#63)
    by BrandingIron on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:40:12 AM EST

    I meant to emphasize the part of the quote I quoted from the previous posted, which is the part about Supreme Court judges.

    Alice Palmer Redux (5.00 / 6) (#64)
    by Manuel on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:41:18 AM EST
    This is an issue of character.  It raises legitimate issues about Obama's ability to set priorities.  It seems that winning the nomination by any means necessary is more important than party unity or winning in the fall.

    The sad part is (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by BrandingIron on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:05:39 AM EST

    is that I think Obama truly believes that this brand of "Chicago politics" will work on a national level and that all he really needs is the black vote to win the presidency.  In fact it's like he's relying on it and it alone, even though he's taken great pains to distance himself from the black community (save for superpandering to the South Carolinian blacks) in the primary cycle.

    Not so fast (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by WelshWoman on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:45:39 AM EST
    Who said Clinton won't be making those points if she is the nominee.

    We are still at the primary stages and I believe in democracy even if I don't always agree with the result.

    The right to vote is to important to dimiss, everyone should have the right to make their voice heard.

    Obama should have agreed to the re-vote.

    or is it:: (5.00 / 13) (#72)
    by fly on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:49:40 AM EST
    or is the media from the get go just saying what Obama/Axelrod  led them to say all along? That Fla and Mi voters mean nothing..after all, isn't that exactly what he implied when he removed his name from the Mi ballot?

    and wasn't Obama pissing on the rules when he..not once but twice campaigned in Fla, and also sent his wife to capmpaign in Fla in DEC 2007..shortly before the election in Iowa?

    As i have said many times in this past year..Today it is my vote stolen, tommorrow it could be yours, and what we know here in Fla..they try all their dirty work here and perfect how they steal votes here,and then they move on to other states..

    DRE Voting machines, gerrymandering..they talk you into voting absentee then they lose them!!..they just disappear..disenfranchizing hundreds of thousands off the voting lists..they say signatures don't match on absentee minorities..

    ahh the lists go on and on...

    18,000 votes dissapear.. poof..and the dems do nothing about it..

    so don't think your vote is safe..it is not..

    And please don't think for a minute that this is a democracy or a republic ..if entire states votes are not counted..

    We became a bananna Republic Last May when  Dean and Donna Brazile sanctioned us here in fla because we had the temerity to fight all the way to our legislature ..with no help from the dem party i might add, nor any funding or finacial help from the dem party..to get a bill before our congress to ban DRE voting machines and mandate voter verified paper ballots!

    We became worse than some third world nations when in August ..Donna Brazile and her band of crooks  stole all of our votes completely!

    I have lived in numerous countries in my lifetime..and i just wonder today..the richest and most poerful nation just made our people meaningless and our constitution meaningless.

    Because  i lived in Canada where the vote counts, i have lived in Puerto Rico ..where the peoples vote counts..i have even lived in Venezuela ..where people fight to have their vote counted.

    And here i am in my own country ..i have seen my minority son have his very first election vote not counted ..because we were told his own signature didn't match his own signature..his first time voting!!..and in the same election my husbands vote wasn't counted..because his signature didn't match either..or so they said..

    We realized after going to the Supervisor of Elections office .. after being told  the votes weren't counted..that having a Hispanic last name was not condusive to having your votes counted in Florida.

    Time and Time again , the republicans have stolen our votes, and now it is democrats who are stealing our votes, and it is stealing folks..but it is stealing more than our votes..it is stealing our democratic right to vote as citizens of this country.

    If I decided to not pay my taxes..I bet I couldn't tell them..well heck my vote doesn't count, so I don't think I am obligated to pay taxes as I am no longer counted as a citizen of this nation!

    Because to be honest with you..as a lady who fought these voting machines and put up money for bogus Audits of those DRE voting machbines to prove they could not be audited..or recounted...

    I feel like I and my family are people without a country.

    And it just doesn't seem that enough people care ..

    But you will.. when it is your vote that gets stolen..but by then, it will be too late..because no one seems to listen to those of us in Fla when we warn you of what is coming to your state ..one way or another and in many similar forms...it will be happening to you, or your family, or your neighbor...or the Vet down the street from you..

    See Obama and Dean and Brazile  didn't just steal my vote and my families votes..we have the largest block of Vets in the nation living in Florida..those Vets fought for their vote..and sacrificed for that vote. The headquarters of this war is in Tampa Fla..many of our young people have gone and fought ..and sacraficed, and many have not come home, in fact we have lost several young men in the past month..do they not have the right to vote and have their votes counted????????? Do their parents not have the right to have their votes counted? Do the spouses of these soldiers , many deployed not have the right to have their votes counted?

    Only a very selfish narsisstic person Like Obama would play with peoples votes and denegrate anyone who would fight for those votes, and play politics with our votes, as he and his surrogates have. I do not believe MrObama gives a rats crap about democracy or those who have sacrificed today and yesterday and tommorrow and given the most for those votes ..and  for the right to vote and have that vote counted.

    Mr Obama and his surrogates stole my vote..they will never get my vote in November,ever! It is now not negotiable.

    Fly..a 2004 Elected Delegate for the State Of Florida.

    Please add Harold Ickes and Clinton supporters (1.00 / 1) (#180)
    by Christy1947 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:46:23 PM EST
    to the list of those who stole your votes. She has thirteen members of the Rules Committee who are her supporters and Ickes in her campaign itself. They ALL voted to assess the 100% penalty in a 29-1 vote, the one being a gentleman from Tampa. If they hadn't voted unanimously to do this to FLA then, unhappy Floridians wouldn't be in the spot they're in now.

    How can (5.00 / 5) (#74)
    by kenoshaMarge on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:50:25 AM EST
    any Democratic candidate not think FL and MI are an issue? Do they think we have all forgotten that Bush "won" in 2000 because the Supreme court selected him?  

    Do they think we have all forgotten that in spite of all the shenanigans in Ohio John Kerry couldn't be bothered to fight for every vote? (One of the reasons I despise him. Fighting for votes isn't being a "sore loser" you pinhead, it's fighting for the right of voters to have their votes be counted and count.)

    And now Democrats/Liberals/Fauxgressives are willing to disenfranchise two states in order to help their candidate?

    Obama may foolishly believe that Hillary supporters will forget this outrage but he should know, being a "smart" politician and all, that the GOP will have a field day stoking the fires of anger against Obama and the DNC. If he lacks the integrity to do the right thing he should at least see the political necessity.


    all they care about (5.00 / 5) (#78)
    by Kathy on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:54:32 AM EST
    is Obama getting the nomination and Clinton losing.

    They are not even looking ahead to the ge.  They want to crush her for daring to challenge him, and they believe all the crap that Obama spin out about Clinton.

    The RFK thing is absolutely despicable.  Just the last straw for me.


    At least Obama gave us something else (none / 0) (#119)
    by BarnBabe on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:44:35 AM EST
    to talk about today. Of course, I have not checked the Big O. Maybe that is still the topic of the week.

    I will never vote for this man (5.00 / 12) (#80)
    by goldberry on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:56:30 AM EST
    Never.  And listen up any of you Superdelegates who maybe lurking:  When a person tells you that they are physically ill by the thought of voting for Obama given his outrageous contempt for his base and the voters, you need to believe it.  Because after the nomination is secured, he is going to be the biggest cock-of-the-walk that ever lived and none of us will be able to look at him without anger.  
    He will be nothing to us.  You will have condemned the party to four more years of obscurity.  
    As long as there is a choice before the nomination, we expect you to do the right thing.

    "physically ill" (5.00 / 4) (#96)
    by BrandingIron on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:07:30 AM EST

    My girlfriend recently stated to me that she didn't really hate Obama until she watched the "sweetie" video.  Now she can't stand him and his patronizing, arrogant @ss.

    "Not now, sweetie, the MEN are talking!" is how she put it.  And that's sure how it sounded.


    Ditto: never for Obama (5.00 / 4) (#157)
    by felizarte on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:47:22 AM EST
    not even if Hillary herself asked me to.

    I think Obama expects (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by lilburro on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:57:27 AM EST
    the superdelegate flow on June 3 to erase all questions and turn the page.  Regardless of popular vote count, etc.  I don't think he understands how unpleasant and uncomfortable that sight will be for Clinton supporters.  Aside from the fact it will look like a literal crowning.

    Carter on June 3:  Political Punch

    It'll be interesting to see how Florida is seated, if it's seated by him.  

    Jimmy Carter (5.00 / 4) (#91)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:05:15 AM EST
    has proven himself the most politically inept man who ever held high office.

    It is a wonder he won the Presidency.


    He sees a kindred spirit. . . (5.00 / 4) (#98)
    by andgarden on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:09:49 AM EST
    LOL (5.00 / 3) (#123)
    by BarnBabe on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:50:06 AM EST
    Got that one right. They really are alike. All about a DC outsider cleaning up after Nixon/Ford. How did that work out? Now the quote on Yahoo before was Carter says Super Delegates will encourage her to quit. Hey, hear this Carter, the Hillary Supporters, and we are going to be super delegates in our own way when we don't show up, are encouraging Obama to quit.

    Now that would be an interesting (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by oculus on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:53:48 AM EST
    subject to read about, should you be inclined to write a post.

    I knew it!! (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by Josey on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:14:52 AM EST
    Obama never even mentioned health care as an issue - and I've noticed he doesn't demonstrate an urgency for health care reform.

    A stock broker told me once (5.00 / 3) (#108)
    by magisterludi on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:24:01 AM EST
    that the investor class never thinks past the next quarter. I found that kind of solipsism pretty scary- don't these guys help shape the market, therefore the economy?

    My point is that is how the Obama team seems to think, too, and I find that equally scary.

    Actually, scarier.

    Hmm. I wonder (5.00 / 3) (#139)
    by Matt v on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:07:57 AM EST
     when Obbama and his contingent will start demanding McCain drop out of the race because Dems are leading in the polls?

      Given his hubris, I'm sure it's being thought of.

    Did I mention (5.00 / 3) (#153)
    by Mrwirez on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:37:11 AM EST
    I quit the democratic party last week, and became an independent after 22 years in the party?? Obama has my family soooo mad at him. My fathers side is in Clear water FL, my moms side is is Troy, MI. They are NOT voting for Obama. They are going to vote for John McCain because of Barack Obama blocking a revote in both FL and MI. I simply hate this man.

    Be careful. . . (5.00 / 2) (#181)
    by rhae on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:53:08 PM EST
    In this climate of racism and sexism that word "hate" could get you fried in oil.  Just kidding!  Truth is I think you're probably right.  There are going to be big divisions in this party over a lot of issues that people find  hard to express without looking racist or sexist. I can't support Obama because I don't believe in him.  He's no C. Powell! I don't think he has a clue about how to make the "changes" we all seek in this country.  It has nothing to do with color.  But if I express my concerns then I'm always asked if I'm racist?  I deplore the way Senator Clinton is treated by the press and how everything she says is "twisted" into something negative and awful.  We are not afraid to be openly sexist in this country.  I don't think her continued campaign hurts the party or Obama chances should he get the nomination.  But this party does not reflect my belief system anymore.  McCain was "once" a Demo and now I'm seeing more and more why he couldn't stay.  After 911 I think "most American's supported a war. "Why didn't we send Obama to just talk with Osama then?  But like everything else that starts out with good intentions it went on too long and we lost too many fine people with very little to show for it. This man of "CHANGE" doesn't even know where to begin! Nor do I necessarily want to follow down his path.

    Contrived Controversy? (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by rhae on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:52:49 AM EST
       If Obama thinks he can go into November without Florida and Michigan being counted then he's fooling himself! If he were as "strong a candidate as he professes" then he should want those issues resolved and those voters recognized at the table. The democratic "leadership" (if it can be called such)that has allowed this to happen should be prepared to face a rash of us "yellow-dogs" to just give up and get out of the party if there is no better accountability than this!  DNC-How do you like that "MATH"?

    Su ndaty Shows (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by glennmcgahee on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:38:31 PM EST
    So I had to watch the talk shows today just to see the narrative. The pundits all say that ary is hoping Obama will be assaniated. Here it is Memorial Day and all the shows talked about their politics rather than the honoring of our soldiers. The troops are just meat to these people. How disgusting. Its the same with local media here in Florida. The storyline is all the same. The newspeople are the laziest. They've taken one storyline and all dittoed it. Reading the talking points of the Obama campaign and how they are all fawning over him and Hillary is jsut causing trouble. Its no wonder the Democrats have lost the last 2 presidential elections. I hope there is some intelligence left in America. Want to know why Obama will not debate again? Read ABC's website:
    Obama will HAVE to debate McCain. I suspect he is studying now.

    Unbelievable is my thought exactly (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by carmel on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:46:15 PM EST
    when I read what Obama says about FL and MI. Obama is the "unity" candidate, the transcending race and party lines candidate, who has proven that he "wins" elections by "gaming" the system and alienating and dividing constituencies. How could any democratic presidential candidate not say all the votes must count, especially after FL 2000? Since Obama has already proclaimed himself the winner, what's the big deal with counting the votes? I am so tired of Obama blaming Hillary and whining about those silly two states MI and FL - what a pain they are to him, they are stopping his coronation! On top of the headline today in the Washington Post "Obama Campaign Redoubles Efforts to Reach Hispanic Voters". For a candidate that has the nomination sewn up, Obama has an awful lot of reaching out to do.

    Obama's the Democratic George W. Bush (5.00 / 1) (#203)
    by Raven15 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:44:13 PM EST
    I am now convinced. It's an identical mix of arrogance and cluelessness.

    Obama "Fairly" makes my back teeth itch (4.50 / 2) (#160)
    by lambertstrether on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:52:06 AM EST
    It's always there to signal faux  judgment and balance and fairness, and it always happens right before he sticks the shiv in (as much as The Unclothed Emperor Of Passive Aggression can ever be said to stick in the shiv).

    Go Hillary GO (3.66 / 3) (#148)
    by imuscle on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:28:23 AM EST
    It is more apparent than ever, between Clinton and Obama, Hillary is the true fighter...the best at debate...the best at making her point heard...and the best choice to beat McCain.  Obama went to Missouri after the last Priamry because he found out 35% of the people in Missouri who voted for him said they wouldn't vote for him again after the Rev. Wright thing came out.  Missouri is one of the four states the Democrats must win to get the white house...so far he is now 0 for 4.  And what a p_ _ _y.  He had his chance to agree to a revote in michigan and blew it.  And he continues to whine because Hillary is pushing for Florida to count.  I have news for Obama, 50% of America wants Florida and Michigan to count.  There is no possible way for me to vote for a democratic candidate if they play the republican game and pretend Florida and Michigan doesn't count.  I wonder if Hillary would run as a Independent?  I think that I may like that idea.  Oh by the way, I hear one of the delegates from Guam switched from Obama to Clinton...did anyone see that on CNN?  And how Obama again is whining because the delegate didn't go with the popular vote.  Popular vote, I thought Obama said the popular vote didn't count.  So much for HOPE AND CHANGE...give me a break.  

    Can I ask BTD? (1.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Mawm on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:53:41 AM EST
    How can you follow this race, write about what you do, and still support Obama?  I really don't have any respect for that kind of cognitive dissonance.

    Hey, now (5.00 / 3) (#79)
    by Kathy on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:55:50 AM EST
    I'm not BTD, but he has been more than clear about his reasoning.  I think many of us have the utmost respect for him because he is such a rational supporter.  

    Sure, (none / 0) (#90)
    by Mawm on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:04:26 AM EST
    Right, I've heard the reasons before.  I'd like to have him makes the case again, because it is looking really thin now.

    Maybe if he reads his own words again, he'll come to his senses and realize the electability argument doesn't hold water, and without it, nominating Obama is just a mutual suicide pact.


    You are entitlted to your view (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:22:18 AM EST
    as to what I should think, feel or write. Of course, I will follow my own views on this, not yours.

    I criticize people all the time for what they do or do not say. So you have a perfect right to criticize me for what I do or do not say.

    But do me the courtesy of being familiar with what I have and have not said before you criticize me for them.


    Contempt??? (1.00 / 2) (#93)
    by freethinker25 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:05:55 AM EST
    How is this comment contempt for the voters of Florida and Michigan??? The Florida and Michigan voters know whos to blame for this situation, and its not Obama. Its the leaders in their respective states who made the decision to move up the primary's. The best solution to this mess is cut delegates in both states in half just as the Republicans did. The voters in both states can be equally unhappy. What is not fair is to leave no punishment at all. I think what Obama was saying and is justly upset about is Clinton comparing the situation to Florida in 2000 and the civil rights movement. If Clinton felt so passionately about this "disenfranchisement" of voters she should have stood up forcefully when the DNC initially came out with their ruling. To wait until the race is almost over  and this is the last hope Clinton has to win the primaries is very disingenuous.

    So you disagree with Obama (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:15:20 AM EST
    that this is a Clinton contrived controversy?

    You do realize that your comment makes no logical sense.


    Hillary did speak out against it (5.00 / 3) (#109)
    by Josey on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:27:26 AM EST
    beginning about 3 weeks before the Jan 29 FL primary.
    Obama has consistently  maintained "Florida doesn't matter" and that's the message he conveyed before the primary.
    Later, Sharpton and other Obama leaders claimed his FL supporters didn't vote because they weren't aware of the primary and some even came to precincts on Super Tuesday.
    Obama remained silent and never took responsibility for his part dissuading participation in the primary.

    Talk to us again in November. (5.00 / 3) (#116)
    by samanthasmom on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:36:19 AM EST
    See how this works out for you.

    reply to:Contempt??? (5.00 / 6) (#135)
    by fly on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:59:52 AM EST
    you obviously don't know the facts..and it is a shame you can comment on what you know little about !
    1.the bill brought before the Republican controlled Florida legislature was to ban DRE voting machines, and mandate voter verified paper ballots.
    in 2006 the county of Sarasota had 18,000 missing votes with the DRE voting machines..no audit was possible although the best computer brains in the nation were brought in to attempt to audit the machines..of which no audit was possible.
    the county of Pinellas attempted as well to have the state audit the DRE voting machines ..the state auditor came to Pinellas and sat for two days and at the conclusion of two days in which myself and a couple other citizens paid for the audit..no audit was possible of the DRE voting machines the state auditor admitted., that meant no recount could be done either, under any circumstances.

    2. the citizens of Florida fought to get the bill banning DRE voting machines and mandating voter verified paper ballots before the Florida legislature.

    i assure you republicans had no wishes to ban the machines that were stealing elections for them!

    1. The bill was fought over in the state legislature and many many hundreds of Florida Citizens were in Tallahassee for this bill and the vote on the bill..there was no democrat in our legislature that dared to vote against this bill..they would have lost their job and been recalled if they had.

    2. the overwhelming majority republican legislature agreed to the bill but added an amendment to that bill ..the amendment changed the date of the primary.
    It would not have mattered what the dems wanted the Majority republican legislature could over rule them.

    1. we became the first state in the nation to outright ban the DRE voting machines and mandate voter verkfied paper ballots ..to commence before the 2008 general election.

    2. immediately after the bill was signed Dean demanded sanctions on Florida and his immediate solution was for Florida to hold caucus's instead of a primary..which by the way is illegal in Florida.

    so please..you tell me how this could have been done differently?????????

    we were punished for being the first state in the nation to do what the democratic party should have done federally when they took charge in 2006!..Banned the DRE voting machines that can be hacked by a young school kid..and mandating voter verified paper ballots..nationwide..but they sat on their assets and did nothing..so we the citizens if Florida did it for oursleves as we have seen and experinced not only 2000 being stolen, but 2002 2004 and 2006 being stolen with these machines!

    and for that we are now punished by losing all our votes..

    and yes i do 100% blame Obama and i blame Dean and i blame Brazile..becuase from the first hours of this bill being signed ..Dean and Brazile attempted to try to force Florida dems into a cuaucs..gee what did they know last may 2007 that the rest of us did not????????? that they were going to steal the primary election by means of the caucus????????

    count on that..because we in Fla did not understand why there was such a heavy push on caucus for Florida at that time..we understand it quite well now!

    Dean went as far as offering $800,000.00+ to the Florida dem party to run a separate caucus after our primary to select delegates, but that is then and is still illegal in Florida.

    The fix was in at least last year by the DNC and those tied to Obama!



    Isn't Joe Andrews (none / 0) (#176)
    by DJ on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:26:05 PM EST
    of Super Del fame a lobbyist for DRE?

    He should have shown unifying leadership (5.00 / 2) (#159)
    by andrys on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:51:54 AM EST
    even if it was just strategy.

      Instead of cutting the delegation to 50% of the actual total and keeping the distribution accurate, he insisted on a full 50% of the delegate share despite removing his name and then asking people to vote for Uncommitted, said by his surrogates to be a way of voting for him and said quite openly.

      No, unifying and leadership of a positive type has not been his thing.

      Re Obama's activity with regard to Michigan and the instructions by him and by his surrogates to vote for Uncommitted, here are the details of that.  It indicates participation to quite an extent though legal because it was not by the Chicago portion of his campaign.  The Uncommitted vote would normally be split between Obama, Edwards, and Richardson but it was the Obama team and surrogates who did heavily encourage that a vote for Uncommitted was a vote for Obama.


    You might not be a Democrat if... (none / 0) (#97)
    by Mawm on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:09:29 AM EST
    You don't want to count votes.

    This guy wants to do like the REPUBLICANS?

    %50 representation?

    Democrats count every vote!

    Democrats stand for vote rights.

    I think FL and MI have been PUNISHED enough this season.

    Let the will of the people stand!


    Counting the votes? HRC is wrong !!! Period (1.00 / 1) (#145)
    by CoffeeCandy on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:22:28 AM EST
    Big Tent Democrat's HRC belittle these voters a long time ago and what did you say then????? You are so full of crap to try and pin this on Obama
    Everyone is blaming Obama  for this  Florida, Michigan issue  He did not do one thing !!!  HRC  stated they didn't mean anything when they  broke the rules and it's ok for her to say it  However when  Obama  states  HRC  is stirring up anger  All of a sudden it's his fault and hes wrong for making that statement for what is happening in  Florida, Michigan  Something is really wrong with  some people in America if they can't see with their own eyes what HRC is doing Why would I want a person for President that changes the rules in the middle of play. All of a sudden she cares for the Vote and these people really believe her

    We blame it on Obama because he IS to blame (5.00 / 5) (#165)
    by lambertstrether on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:57:42 AM EST
    If he wanted the matter to be resolved, he would have agreed to the revote, after Carville put up $15 million to make it happen. He didn't. Instead, he lawyered up, said that Bush's Justice [ha] would have to get involved in FL, and shilly shallied in MI. All it would have taken is a word from him, and everything else would have fallen into place.

    Unless MI and FL are seated and able to influence the outcome, which Obama explicitly does not call for, then Obama's nomination will not be percieved as legitimate, and we'll lose two states in the general we've got to have.

    So, boo f*cking hoo for Obama, the great unifier and political genius who totally painted himself into a corner on this.

    Leaders lead. Obama doesn't.


    Re Lawyering up, my understanding of the complaint (none / 0) (#182)
    by Christy1947 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:05:01 PM EST
    filed last week by the three would-be delegates includes a claim that a change to a caucus would require "Bush Justice" Voting Rights Act clearance. It may not be Obama alone who thinks that, as these three folk  lawyered up and put  it in in writing in court. I think BTD posted a link to the Court complaint and it might be worth a read.

    Don't be daft (none / 0) (#149)
    by Faust on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:29:37 AM EST
    Even if you hate Clinton there is no reason to be an idiot about it.

    Obama has already said he wants to seat Fl. Why add aditional rhetoric? It's not necessary and it alienates Clinton supporters. Politics is not about right an wrong most of the time. It's about perception and in this case he should want to be percieved as being magnaminous.


    Perception? (5.00 / 2) (#174)
    by rhae on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:19:12 PM EST
       It alienates Clinton supporters!  He can't win without us.

    I am reading all of this mess (1.00 / 5) (#147)
    by CoffeeCandy on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:28:06 AM EST
    UNDERSTAND  PEOPLE !!!!  HRC did NOT CARE when these two states broke the rules  .. NOW she needs then CAN YOU NOT SEE THIS ARE YOU THAT BLIND ???

    "SUSPENDED" from what, fool? (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by lambertstrether on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:53:14 AM EST
    Is that a lynching reference!?!?!??!

    Cue the wankfest! CoffeeCandy is racist!


    We Use Inside Voices On This Blog (5.00 / 2) (#175)
    by MO Blue on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:22:17 PM EST
    Please try to improve the contents of your rant as you are a few days behind in your Obama talking points. Other Obama supporters, with more talent, have come before you with this meme.

    iS yOUR cAPS lOCK (none / 0) (#164)
    by Mrwirez on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:55:08 AM EST
    oN ??

    It is clear in this area that (1.00 / 5) (#152)
    by CoffeeCandy on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:36:30 AM EST
    You are always going to be for HRC even when she is dead wrong so continue your fight and be blessed You have a long road to walk

    would this be considered (none / 0) (#3)
    by Salo on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:03:10 AM EST
    good press for him or bad press?

    "are you a good witch (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by zfran on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:04:39 AM EST
    or a bad witch"

    The media will love it (5.00 / 7) (#7)
    by andgarden on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:05:03 AM EST
    because we know that they agree with him about this. It's terrible politics, though.

    Good thing PR (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by Kathy on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:08:57 AM EST
    gets US television news on TV sets they pay for with US money, from which US taxes are taken.

    Oh, but they don't matter, so who cares?


    The media loves it as a Clinton put down... (5.00 / 7) (#16)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:13:32 AM EST
    ...that's what it means for them because he is the media darling. Right now he can get away with saying things like this with impunity because the media and the democratic party let him get away with it. If he ultimately gets away with it will depend on if the republicans decide to use this against him if he is the nominee. They are so inept, however, that his camp probably has every reason to be confident that none of this will deter his progres to the White House. I mean look, he doesn't even consider this a gaffe, right? This is a "reasoned" argument he is making to his supporters, ie, reporters, on a plane.

    I just wonder-- (5.00 / 6) (#22)
    by Kathy on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:18:08 AM EST
    the media know John McCain.  They like him an awful lot.  They think he's a good guy, and funny, and all that.  They like Obama, too, but they haven't known him as long.

    What would you do if your new friend started trashing your old friend of 20 years?

    Because Obama can't win on the issues.  He never has.  His message is hope and change and free ponies for everybody...and my opponent is a racist m-fer who kills children in the dead of night with her razor thin witch claws.

    How do you think that narrative will work against McCain with the media watching?


    if the comment circulates (5.00 / 4) (#26)
    by Salo on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:20:55 AM EST
    among Clinton loyalists it loses him votes.

    that's what i mean. he's quietly damaged by comments that don't quite become media controvercies.


    It will be interesting to see when.... (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:21:26 AM EST
    ...he does start trashing McCain and they try to brand him as a racist old man, because I have a feeling its coming. Right now I think it could go 50/50. It really depends on what kind of a defense the Republican party as a whole puts up for McCain.

    Folks we are in for the (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Stellaaa on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:28:25 AM EST
    same old kid of c*ck fight.  Nothing changes.  I just heard an audio on NPR of the Obama McCain quips.  Same old male BS.

    You called it. (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by BrandingIron on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:31:53 AM EST

    he does start trashing McCain and they try to brand him as a racist old man, because I have a feeling its coming.

    But it won't work at all, considering that he has a darkly Indian adopted child of his own.  It will backfire horrendously on Obama, and it will show in the vote for the GE.


    Kathy, (5.00 / 6) (#55)
    by kenoshaMarge on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:33:40 AM EST
    Isn't it also true that McCain goes out of his way to make himself accessible to reporters and that's one of the reasons they like him so much? And isn't it also true that Obama does not make himself accessible? Haven't I read that he keeps away from the press except when "he" wants to interact?

    The media consacrating him as their (5.00 / 4) (#94)
    by feet on earth on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:06:46 AM EST
    'darling' is what the media does to then turn on him and  support McCain. This has been discussed over and over again and again and we all expect it.

    Maria, the point you are making here "and the democratic party let him get away with it" is what infuriates me, what we should be much more angry about more than we are, talk about, fight about.  

    The behavior of the demos leaders and insider is revolting and in my view a betrayal of the most fundamental democratic principles and voters' rights.

    There is no unity pony possible because there is nothing to unite around: the party sell out is so huge that nothing much is left.


    More chances to save Hillary (2.00 / 2) (#29)
    by 1jane on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:22:54 AM EST
    The Obama campaign has stated many times that all of the delegates can be seated. Clinton has organized a protest on May 31st in Washington DC for women from all over the country to fly in to protest outside the DNC Rules committee meeting. There is another organization you can donate to called Not So Fast that is forming among women Clinton supporters.

    Reality based voters will have the opportunity to observe the Clinton stategies for themselves.


    TO: ObamaTrollCorp: (5.00 / 17) (#49)
    by Kathy on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:29:17 AM EST
    ATTN:  Troll Recall  (Nice division, Section 400)
    RE: Second Request for New Concern Troll

    Dear Sir or Sir:

    Kindly could you please send us a new troll?  We hate to complain, mostly because it makes us look like "victims" and is "unseemly," but some of the trolls of late have been very tedious.  The ones making the transition from nasty to nice seem to be stuck in concern mode, which I think we can all agree is hard for them.  Perhaps a system-wide upgrade is in order?  Your attention to this matter will be much appreciated.  I'm fairly certain this one is scheduled to go under the bus at any moment anyway.

    Thank you,
    A Concerned TL-er


    Oh, snap! (5.00 / 2) (#167)
    by lambertstrether on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:00:04 PM EST

    Indeed (5.00 / 5) (#52)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:31:38 AM EST
    Another Obama supporter more interested in blaming Clinton for an Obama loss than in an Obama win in November.

    Obama's worst enemies.


    They hate Clinton (5.00 / 7) (#56)
    by andgarden on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:33:42 AM EST
    more than they want to win in November.

    that seems clear (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:47:35 AM EST
    Let's hope the Obama camp does not feel the same way.

    either they hate Clinton more (5.00 / 3) (#73)
    by RalphB on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:50:17 AM EST
    or they really believe Obama is the One.  Both attitudes are pretty dangerous.

    But what Obama does NOT say... (5.00 / 2) (#170)
    by lambertstrether on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:04:42 PM EST
    ... is "seated in time to affect the outcome."

    Sure, FL and MI could get tickets to the coronation. And so what?

    Incidentally, 1Jane, if your handle references what I think it does, maybe it's time to decant a newer clone? I think your neuronal subsystems are getting a wee but clogged. Maybe you've noticed you're not thinking as clearly as you used to? Just a helpful word of advice.


    does anyone really know Axelrod's (none / 0) (#15)
    by Salo on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:13:32 AM EST
    political principles?

    just as a curious aside...

    what exactly does that guy think?

    Again (none / 0) (#102)
    by freethinker25 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:15:02 AM EST
    This is a case that should have been made prior to the beginning of the primaries. If talkleft, Clinton supporter, and other Democrats felt so passionately about having every vote count they should have led a movement prior to the primaries to fight the ruling. This never happened. Just like in middle of a baseball game we don't change the number of outs per  inning, we cannot and should not change the rules in the middle of the primaries.  

    Some of us did (5.00 / 5) (#105)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:19:51 AM EST
    Among them Markos Moulitsas btw.

    But of course that is neither here nor there.
    What YOU think should have been done by whom and when is irrelevant. What Floridians and Michiganders think about what Obama said is a hell of alot more important.

    Some day, you may want to step out of that bubble you are living in.


    Look, I agree... (none / 0) (#110)
    by freethinker25 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:27:39 AM EST
    I think the decision by the DNC was idiotic. Winning Florida would make it nearly impossible for the Republicans to win in Nov. However the rules are always set prior to the game, not changed at the end. I believe we need to determine the presumptive nominee without Florida, and then that nominee seat the delegates. I dont live in a bubble, I know exactly what this whole "Count every Vote" thing is about. Its about getting Clinton elected. To pretend that it is anything different is lying to yourself.

    And Floridians and Michiganders (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:33:00 AM EST
    apprecisate your support . . . NOT.

    It as if you did not even read my comment.


    No I read it... (none / 0) (#118)
    by freethinker25 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:38:18 AM EST
    But I see on the right hand side an ad for a rally in dc, fl and mi to have every vote count. Why didn't this happen immediately after the ruling. I understand you may have objected to the ruling as many others did, it was after all a stupid decision. However, nobody really tried to fight it. Also, left out of the discussion is the fairness of the votes themselves. If nobody campaigned in Iowa do you really believe that Obama still would have won Iowa. ? Now we never may know what the actual results may have been had everyone campaigned in Florida, they may have been exactly the same, but you must agree that Clinton was the main beneficiary in not allowing any campaigning. Clinton is a known quantity being the wife of a very popular Democratic President. While many people knew of Obama, nobody really saw anything other than the sound bites the news media decided to show. As for Michigan, how can you possibly claim that it was a fair election?

    Fine (5.00 / 3) (#131)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:56:27 AM EST
    It was a brilliant remark from Obama and sure to win the hearts and minds of Floridians and Michiganders.

    Do ANY of you Obama supporters want to win in November?


    No I read it... (5.00 / 3) (#140)
    by fly on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:10:40 AM EST
    my reply to your comment :quote:"But I see on the right hand side an ad for a rally in dc, fl and mi to have every vote count. Why didn't this happen immediately after the ruling."

    fly replies..it did..you just weren't paying attention ..nor was the media..we were writing letters to edutors and to media people..they would not cover our protests and our letters and our begging to get this covered..or when Obama broke the rules right after signing the pledge!

    it is not our fault you weren't paying attention..it was in all our Fla papers..but nationally..i believe only Lou Dobbs covered it!!

    now why would that be, when many many of us were even sending chain letters to the media about this injustice and this stealing of our votes!

    And it was stealing because as per the DNC rules..they were supposed to do an investigation as to why the primary date was changed..and they did not do that..and that failure was led by Donna Brazile..


    and if you believe she has not been a surrogate for Obama from the get go..i have nice swampland in Florida for you...man friendly aligators included.




    Sound bites? (5.00 / 3) (#141)
    by BarnBabe on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:12:09 AM EST
    Have you been watching the all Obama Network for this primary season? No? Well MSNBC, which was not blacked out in Florida, was a lot more than just Obama sound bites. It was a telethon. It was full non stop campaign ads. What, now you are going to say the people in Florida don't have cable? No, the people in Florida did not get to know Obama is not going to fly. They just like Hillary better. And many of the residents came from NY, Ohio, and Penna to name a few.And we have whipped the Fla at fault theme to death. The DNC, seeing what the GOP was doing in Fla to change the date, should not have made such a hard steadfast rule. They should have thrown it back at the Fla GOP rather than falling for their pi## off the Fla voters for the GE.

    wrong (5.00 / 4) (#120)
    by Josey on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:45:13 AM EST
    Hillary has been saying "count the votes" since before the FL & MI primaries.
    otoh - Obama has always maintained "FL and MI don't count."

    Salon - Jan 15, 08

    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...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.


    Comment delelted for linking (none / 0) (#127)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:54:53 AM EST
    badly. Broke the margins.

    What is this Soviet Russia??? (none / 0) (#129)
    by freethinker25 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:56:05 AM EST
    I had made a post refuting the above comment and it was deleted, for what reason. I don't violate any site rules, so please explain why it was deleted?

    What is this Soviet Russia? (5.00 / 3) (#133)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:58:45 AM EST
    Have you lost your freaking mind?

    Now you ARE suspended. Do not comment any further today.

    Your further comment WILL be deleted. Your last one was deleted, as I EXPLAINED in a comment, because you broke the margins due to your inept linking.

    Now you can go away for the rest of the day. I am serious. Do NOT COMMENT anymore today.


    sorry... (none / 0) (#132)
    by freethinker25 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:56:52 AM EST
    Eff that (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:59:22 AM EST
    Leave. You pissed me off. Go. I do not want you here for the rest of the day.

    your WaPo article is dated Oct. 07 (none / 0) (#168)
    by Josey on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:02:12 PM EST
    Unlike Obama, Hillary was thinking ahead to the General. You've selected a partial quote to support your agenda, but this is the context...

    "It's clear, this election they're having is not going to count for anything," Clinton said Thursday during an interview on New Hampshire Public Radio's call-in program, "The Exchange." "But I just personally did not want to set up a situation where the Republicans are going to be campaigning between now and whenever, and then after the nomination, we have to go in and repair the damage to be ready to win Michigan in 2008."

    "I did not believe it was fair to just say, 'Goodbye Michigan' and not take into account the fact we're going to have to win Michigan if we're going to be in the White House in January 2009," she said.


    For some of (5.00 / 3) (#130)
    by kenoshaMarge on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:56:15 AM EST
    us "counting every vote" is not about any candidate but about the right of voters to have their votes count. That's what Democrats do. If not, then liberals need to get down off their self-righteous high horses and quit pretending they are any better about voters rights than Republicans.

    Wrong is always wrong (5.00 / 5) (#114)
    by Step Beyond on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:33:57 AM EST
    It's never too late to right a wrong. And no rule has to be changed in order to correct this.

    As I said on Sept 2, 2007 (dKos link):

    I am absolutely stunned how much resistance there is to the simple idea that people shouldn't be denied their right to vote based on the actions of party leaders (either national or state).

    If you didn't want us in Iraq for 100 years, maybe you should have led a movement prior to us going into Iraq. You don't change the rules in the middle of a war. See, it's just as stupid applied to the Iraq war as when you apply it to Florida votes.


    Rule? (none / 0) (#173)
    by rhae on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:11:19 PM EST
    It was a "STUPID" rule to begin with!  Who didn't see this problem coming?  DNC makes a "rule" that disenfranchises hundredes of thousands of voters and then they don't expect trouble? Neither Clinton or Obama are responsible for that, BUT we can't ignore the consequences. It makes Obama look bad and he won't have my support until he recognizes all the votes cast.  He has not convinced me that he wants to be president of "All America".  

    That kind of "logic" (none / 0) (#187)
    by txpolitico67 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:20:38 PM EST
    would apply to anyone protesting a war, an economic injustice, a social injustice.  It's never too late to protest or object to an action or situation.

    Whoa, he is for this? (none / 0) (#128)
    by BarnBabe on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:54:54 AM EST
    who's going to continue the Bush tax cuts and who's going to give a middle class tax cut," Obama said.
    I didn't know that. Silly me. The Bush tax cuts are horrible and the entire program needs revamping. As with any ponzi scheme, trickle down does not work. Only the top people get the money.

    Ya Know... (none / 0) (#138)
    by AmyinSC on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:07:35 AM EST
    Whenever I see him say something like this, or like the other post BTD has on Hubris, my FIRST response is to go give Hillary money!!

    Money? (none / 0) (#166)
    by rhae on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:58:26 AM EST
       I had the same reaction.  And I sent her a check!

    Well Done! (none / 0) (#183)
    by AmyinSC on Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:12:59 PM EST
    I agree (none / 0) (#146)
    by Faust on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:23:42 AM EST
    poor rhetoric from Obama. The thing that bothers me about his statment re: Clinton is that there is no REASON for it politically. At least none I can discern. The media is hammering on this point already...why add to it? Even if he believes it, it's just not smart.

    Here's a ? the complicit press should ask: (none / 0) (#184)
    by txpolitico67 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:16:24 PM EST
    "Senator Obama, considering your remarks and stances on the FL and MI issue, what are your plans for the GE, to make up for these states if you happen to lose their electoral votes?"

    If he were to come back and say, "we'll them come around" or something to that effect would be the DEATH knell of his campaign.


    *error* (none / 0) (#185)
    by txpolitico67 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:17:29 PM EST
    I meant "THEY" will come around.

    FLA and MI (none / 0) (#189)
    by Lola939 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:43:40 PM EST
    Sadly, Obama speaks and the DNC follows

    RE: Most messages in this thread (1.00 / 1) (#200)
    by ridiculous111 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 02:52:30 PM EST
    Wow, I can only sit on my hands for so long. Hillary Clinton agreed to the terms of the DNC concerning FL and MI, just as did every other Democrat nominee. Why did she have more of the popular vote in MI and FL? Bc she campaigned in FL and Obama did not(she violated the earlier agreement) and her name was the only one on the ballot in MI. Now, I would not have an exception to her tactics had she not AGREED to the DNC terms earlier. She could have contested them, but she didn't.

    Oh? and why does the popular vote matter to Hillary now? Because months ago she was tauting the great role of Superdelegates when she was up by 100 superdelegates. But now that Obama has more delegates and superdelegates, their roles do not matter so much. Now, she wants to change things up. Hillary only likes the rules that she can win by.

    Oh? and when has Obama been called the "anointed one"? Hillary has a huge case of entitlement-itis, it's ridiculous. She thought, as did many, that she had this nomination in the bag. Now that she is trailing, she's the underdog? Wow, do we really have that short of a memory?

    Oh? and Hillary Clinton has tons of experience? I surely hope you are not counting the eight years of being first lady. So if I marry a surgeon, I can perform your open heart surgery? She manipulated her way into being senator of new york, just as she is trying to manipulate her way into being president of the united states.

    I voted for Obama in my primary (+caucus) in May, but at the time, I would have been happy with a Hillary nomination. However, I may have to doublethink voting for her if she wins because her advertisements and her innuendos have left a horrible taste in my mouth. Her husband had the nomination way before June, she needs to stop using that as a talking point. The nomination process in the 1960s only had a handful of primaries - it's like comparing apples and oranges - so her mentioning of the Kennedy primaries are both inaccurate and insinuating.

    Alright, that's the end of my soapbox (but seriously, I could go on and on). I'm just thankful I didn't read any "Obama is a muslim" messages (granted, I didn't read the whole thread).


    Today would be a good day to (none / 0) (#191)
    by MarkL on Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:50:17 PM EST
    jump off the Obama bandwagon, BTD.
    There's really nothing left to recommend him over Hillary, is there?

    The only that is shocking is that (none / 0) (#192)
    by jere on Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:55:43 PM EST
    BTD is shocked by this.  This is exactly what I have come to expect from the annointed one.

    I really used to like Sen. Obama (none / 0) (#201)
    by bunnylady on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:25:30 PM EST
    First of all, thanks to "fly" for the info regarding the FL primary. I'm a news junkie & also read a lot of blogs, so I was beginning to wonder if FL & MI citizens were even paying attention. Many thanks, "fly"!!

    Most of the comments I've read online in the past have been extremely supportive of Sen. Obama and extremely derrogatory to Sen. Clinton. Now, the "annointed one" seems to think that FL and MI just don't count. It's as if he thinks he is some kind of god and can do no wrong. Unfortunatly, FAR too many people agree with him, as does the press. "I am Barack Obama. Bow down before me and worship at my feet!"

    This kind of "nationwide" attitude really scares me. It reminds me of the stranglehold a certain German dictator had on his countryman back in the 1930's. A lot of German citizens simply believed everything this man said and a lot of people had to suffer the consequences for that ignorance.

    Where was the outrage when Sen. Clinton was pounded over and over again in debates, all the while Sen. Obama had a free ride? Then, when Sen. Obama got the "Clinton treatment" in the last debate, he, his blind followers and most of the press cried foul. Double standard if you ask me.

    Sen. Obama seems to think that once he wins the nomination(which he most assuredly will) that everything will all fall into place. Clinton supporters will just magically move over to his way of thinking. Boy, is he ever mistaken.

    I, my mother, my sister and brother-in-law, and my neice will never vote for him in the GE. I don't personally know anyone who WILL vote for him then. We will either hold our noses and vote for Sen. McCain or write in Sen. Clinton.

    The difference between primaries and caucuses (none / 0) (#202)
    by bunnylady on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:45:25 PM EST
    Here in Nebraska the Democratic party decided to hold a caucus in order to have our voices heard well before the campaign was decided, which normally occurs loooong before our May primary. I realized even before I attended my county's caucus that there was a big problem with that system.

    First of all, there are too many people who have to work or have other obligations during the "specified" times of a caucus. Secondly, a lot of people are not comfortable with a "public" show of support, particularly in small towns and villages where everyone knows everyone.

    Since the caucus was new to Nebraska, the Democratic presidential nominees were still on the ballot in our May primary. Here are the differences between the two systems...

    Caucus results: Obama 67.5%-Clinton 32.2%
    Primary results: Obama won by 8(eight) votes-a virtual tie

    Nobody will ever convince me that caucuses are truly representative of the citizens choice.