home

The GOP Talking Point On FL/MI

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:03:56 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Rich Lowry:

[T]he Democrats’ attachment to the unadulterated popular will has gone the way of the hanging chad. Suddenly, Democrats are sticklers for rules. . . . A mere matter of timing has been enough to “disenfranchise” — to use the 2000 argot — 2.3 million Democratic voters.

It’s easy to imagine what Democrats circa 2000 would say about this. Denying the votes in Florida and Michigan would betray the “generation of patriots who risked and sacrificed on the battlefield” in the American Revolution, and be tantamount to “the poll taxes and literacy tests, violence and intimidation, dogs and tear gas” of the Jim Crow era. Counting the votes — ensuring “that every voice is heard and every vote is counted” — would be a cause worthy of the abolitionists and suffragists.

[More...]

Of course, Hillary Clinton has said all of these things. But instead of being hailed as a crusader for justice, she has been greeted with impatient eye-rolls from most of the Democratic establishment and the press who can’t believe Clinton’s temerity in insisting on counting Florida and Michigan. . . . The change from 2000 to 2008 is simple to explain. Back then, the liberal establishment wanted Gore to beat Bush. Now, most of it wants Obama to finish off Hillary. The standards have changed accordingly.

What is the response to that? I have nothing.

By Big Tent Democrat

< Wednesday News Update | Hillary's 11 Page Memo To Superdelegates >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    The GOP Talking Point On FL/MI | 161 comments (161 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Should be required reading (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by bjorn on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:09:56 PM EST
    for the Rules Committee before May 31st

    This should be sent as a package (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by blogtopus on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:31:31 PM EST
    with all the gallup polls, the recent report shown here earlier this week, and a big fat raspberry on the front.

    Hell, there should be a youtube / powerpoint with this. Obama should be hired as McCain's campaign manager.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:54:28 PM EST
    should be McCain's campaign manager. He's done more to help him than the stupid GOP has.

    [ Parent ]
    Hillary has said (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by pie on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:55:26 PM EST
    repeatedly that she will support Obama wholeheartedly if he's the nominee, because democratic success in November is so important.  She's very credible and sincere when she says this.

    I have yet to hear Obama even whisper the same thing.

    [ Parent ]

    He has said something similar (none / 0) (#136)
    by kayla on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:19:55 PM EST
    several times.  Yes, Hillary was talking about Unity about a month before Obama ever did, but still.. he has stated that he will work hard for Hillary if she were the nominee.

    [ Parent ]
    That delay in being a true Dem (none / 0) (#159)
    by Cream City on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:54:12 PM EST
    makes Obama sound reluctant.  No excuses.  The teleprompter was not broken.  His staff could have gotten some "just words" up on the screen for him in a day.

    [ Parent ]
    But Michelle is not even sure she (none / 0) (#175)
    by feet on earth on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:00:33 AM EST
    can vole for Hillary if she is the nominee, and
    if I were Bill I'd wear protective safety glasses whenever  Michelle O was physically close to me.

    That would make a great UNITY VIDEO:  Bill with a all bunch of supporters with night goggles on and  off as Michelle came in and our of view.

    [ Parent ]

    this is the year, after all, (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by Turkana on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:11:27 PM EST
    of change.

    Turkana (5.00 / 9) (#14)
    by Steve M on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:20:18 PM EST
    Really nice post today about the Appalachia thing.  Although I admire it not for the evisceration of Markos, who is low-hanging fruit at this point, but rather the affirmation of the fact that there really is a problem which needs to be solved by November.  I can't believe Democrats would rather stick their heads in the sand and pretend it's all about racism rather than recognize that Obama simply has the same electoral problem that John Kerry and countless other Democrats have had.

    [ Parent ]
    second that. n/t (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by proudliberaldem on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:27:47 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    According to his supporters... (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by dianem on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:32:15 PM EST
    ... Accusing Obama of elitism is the equivalent of using the word "uppity". Oddly, this exact word has been used to describe Kerry, and nobody saw it as a serious perjoritive. Once again, they are using the fact that Obama is of mixed race to shield him from an attack. The problem is that the "hard working white people" who didn't vote for him (as opposed to the hard working black people, who did) don't see it that way. They just care that Obama talks like a Yale man and has probably never dug a ditch or been hungry or desperate in his life. Obama has never had to go hat in hand to an employer, humbly asking for work to feed his family. Neither has Clinton, but she doesn't pretend she is one of them. She just claims to be willing to work for them. They know when they are being patronized.

    [ Parent ]
    Clinton had a more modest background than Obama (5.00 / 5) (#76)
    by befuddledvoter on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:43:11 PM EST
    Consider this:

    Obama's parents both had post-graduate degrees.  HIllary's mother merely graduated high school and father had an undergraduate degree.  Obama was primarily supported/reared by grandparents and grandmother was a bank VP.  Obama had enough money between 2nd year at Occidental and third year at Columbia to spend the summer flying from CA to Indonesia to Pakistan to India back to CA and then on to NYC.  Note, not only did he not bus tables like many students, he had the money for a world trip.  Hillary talks of one trip during her college years.  She spent a summer in Alaska and she financed it by working in a fishery, cleaning fish.  While Hillary's father owned a store, it could not have been all the lucrative since the family qualified for government backed student loans.  

    It always irked me that Obama painted himself poor; he was not at all.      

    [ Parent ]

    Child of a single mother on welfare (none / 0) (#150)
    by dianem on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:04:31 PM EST
    That's the image he conjures. The reality is quite different from the typical welfare mother. She was briefly single, between marriages, and she was on welfare, again, only briefly, and during that time Obama was living with his grandparents in Hawaii - to go to school, not because his mother was too poor to take care of him.

    I think the most serious mistake the Clinton campaign has made this election cycle is that they didn't communicate who she was. Of course, every time they claimed that she was anything but an elitist, they were mocked by Obama and the media.

    [ Parent ]

    Yep, class is so defined by education (none / 0) (#160)
    by Cream City on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:56:59 PM EST
    as well as values, not income.  And he went to prep school, while she went to public school.  That says it right there.

    [ Parent ]
    Seconded (5.00 / 3) (#62)
    by BDB on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:37:17 PM EST
    Excellent post, Turkana.

    And, Steve M, of course the Dems would rather stick their heads in the sand.  They've never met a noble loss they couldn't embrace or, for that matter, a race they couldn't lose (and then explain it as a noble loss to be embraced).  The party has decided that self-defeat is better than losing to Republicans.  

    [ Parent ]

    The elephant (5.00 / 3) (#109)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:57:22 PM EST
    in the room, imo, is that it can't be fixed and Obama doesn't want to fix it even if he could.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama, the gift that keeps on giving--to McCain (none / 0) (#156)
    by mikeel on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:44:28 PM EST
    How did we get stuck with this guy?  And I would think that the Democrats would be consistent with the principle of counting of ALL the votes.

    So, it's time to move on to the downballot races
    and make sure McCain has to deal with more Democrats in Congress next year.

    [ Parent ]

    Historic Votes Uncounted (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Athena on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:36:18 PM EST
    And another element of change, little noted in the arguments over counting the votes of FL: The voters in those states were casting historic votes for a highly viable female and African-American candidate.    In the case of MI, clearly only the female candidate presented herself to the voters, but the same logic of history applies.

    However, the point is that the voters in those states are being denied the value of their uniquely historic votes, a kind of indirect civil rights injury, in my view.

    [ Parent ]

    You need ot get Markos again (5.00 / 3) (#90)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:49:54 PM EST
    on situational ethics on MI/FL.

    I can not believ ehe wrote that post.

    Adter whaqt wrote on January about the same issue.

    [ Parent ]

    All I can say (none / 0) (#92)
    by andgarden on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:50:53 PM EST
    is that it's a good thing I'm not seeing him in person right now.

    [ Parent ]
    Posting: Left Coaster (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by formerhoosier on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:10:20 PM EST
    Enjoyed your posting, although really do not know how thoughtful individuals can put up with the ardent frequent posters with vitriolic rhetoric and parsing of positions.

    On topic:  As BTD stated eloquently, there is no defense for the stance of the DNC.  They have been shown to be hypocrites.  There is no solution for this that will rectify what they have done.  Voters have always been told their votes would count.  Even the Republicans were not arguing the votes should not count, they framed their argument over how the recount was being conducted.  Their honesty is another matter.  If there is apathy toward the Democratic Party this fall, the DNC will only have themselves to blame.

    [ Parent ]

    I knew (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:12:12 PM EST
    it was coming. And you're right BTD, what can you say?

    The DNC sent me two fundraising letters today. I wrote a nasty note on both of them and sent them back. The GOP used to send them to my husband and he sent them a nasty note too and told them he never wanted to hear from them again. Do the elites of either party really realize how upset and mad the voters in this country are with both parties? Honestly, I used to think that it was just the GOP that was this bad but, gosh darn, we've been proven to be just as bad as they are.

    Lots of voters in Nov are going to be voting for the person not the party imo.

    Got one in the mail today... (5.00 / 11) (#15)
    by kredwyn on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:20:23 PM EST
    Made several comments in sharpie...

    Something to the tune of:
    "Donna Brazile told the base it could sit this election out. You don't want my vote? You don't need my money."

    [ Parent ]

    Or your vote. (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by pie on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:35:30 PM EST
    Mine's sitting here.  That's what I'll say.

    (No wonder Levin is singing a different tune, btw.)

    [ Parent ]

    Use sharpie... (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by kredwyn on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:36:31 PM EST
    it's cathartic.

    [ Parent ]
    Will do (5.00 / 3) (#73)
    by Eleanor A on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:42:41 PM EST
    I got one, too...

    [ Parent ]
    Have 3 to mail back right now (5.00 / 3) (#68)
    by BarnBabe on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:39:25 PM EST
    I have been doing this for 3 months now. I keep telling them to take me off their list. They think I am apparently joking with them. So 2 DNC and 1 Obama. They probably have a lock box and the DNC does not see our responses. But I am sure they see the deposits and notice donations are a little down. Heh.

    [ Parent ]
    I couldn't (5.00 / 2) (#116)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:59:42 PM EST
    find a sharpie. But that or a magic marker were what I really wanted to use instead of a pen.

    [ Parent ]
    Doesn't this just beat all? (5.00 / 6) (#51)
    by pie on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:34:01 PM EST
    Of course, Hillary Clinton has said all of these things. But instead of being hailed as a crusader for justice, she has been greeted with impatient eye-rolls from most of the Democratic establishment

    The effing DNC is actually ceding the election to McCain.  Rich must be gleeful.

    [ Parent ]

    GOP ads for FL & MI will be easy (5.00 / 3) (#127)
    by Josey on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:04:13 PM EST
    Obama discouraged voters in those states from exercising their right to vote and claimed their votes wouldn't count anyway because they're delegates wouldn't be seated at the convention.
    And Obama rejected solutions to count the votes and seat the delegates - but offered proposals that would grant him more delegates than he'd earned.
    He even discouraged his supporters from joining the crowd seeking to have all the votes counted during protests at the Rules committee meeting.
    That's unconscionable. That's elitism. That's Chicago politics.

    [ Parent ]
    A poster (none / 0) (#118)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:01:39 PM EST
    above said that Obama should be McCain's campaign manager. I seconded that opinion.

    [ Parent ]
    I let the DNC know (5.00 / 3) (#130)
    by themomcat on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:06:05 PM EST
    a couple of months ago that I would no longer be contributing to them and that I would only contribute and work for Democratic candidates that I support, Obama is not one of them. I told them very politely and in detail why. It was mostly about Dean, Brazile and the FL/MI delegates. If Obama becomes the nominee, I am changing my affiliation to Independent, as I can not be a member of a party that disenfranchises voters no matter what party they belong to or the candidate they support.

    [ Parent ]
    I just was at a local librul gathering (5.00 / 4) (#161)
    by Cream City on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:03:42 PM EST
    with lots of local and state pols, raising funds for candidates in upcoming races.  I was glad to do that; my donations will go to individuals, just not to the state or national Dem parties.

    And when I said so in conversation with some of them, and dropped in that I no longer was a Dem -- there was shock and awe.  I told them some of what I had written back to Dem state and national fund appeals, and some seemed might unsettled.  They have had me on their lists for a long time -- and I told them that I would be watching their each and every move more closely now.

    It was cathartic.  Good appetizers, too. :-)

    [ Parent ]

    I hate to admit it (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by cmugirl on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:13:57 PM EST
    But he's right.  Is this the first sign of the Apocalypse?

    Even the broken clock (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Makarov on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:20:34 PM EST
    is right twice a day.

    [ Parent ]
    Oh (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:14:04 PM EST
    and BTD, you've really been on a roll lately. Been eating your wheaties eh? :)

    Rich Lowry Is Saying The Dems Are Hypocrites (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by MO Blue on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:14:15 PM EST
    and their so called values are extremely flexible depending on which candidate they impact. Sure looks that way to me.

    Of course, Rich Lowry is ignoring the fact the Republicans are also hypocrites and their so called values are extremely flexible depending on which candidate they impact.

    yes, and this means we will (5.00 / 5) (#9)
    by bjorn on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:15:42 PM EST
    never have the high ground again unless the DNC does the right thing.

    [ Parent ]
    Whoa (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by Cate on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:27:52 PM EST
    Rich Lowery should clarify that there are TWO SEPARATE - OPPOSITE - FACTIONS of the "Democrat" party - the Creative Class - that is just as he describes - and the Hillary Supporters.
    And, no one can convince me that Hillary Clinton, if the tables were reversed, would be for the disenfranchisment of ANY votes even if it meant she lost - regardless of what Roland Martin says!!

    [ Parent ]
    Simple rule (5.00 / 7) (#10)
    by Lou Grinzo on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:16:59 PM EST
    Never, ever, give your opponent a really big stick to beat you with.

    The Dems have done just that, and the Republicans have shown, to absolutely no one's surprise, that they're more than happy to pick up said stick and start whacking away at us.

    Heh (5.00 / 11) (#11)
    by Steve M on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:17:40 PM EST
    What's tragic is that not only are they successfully using this as a billy club in regards to the present election, they're managing to retroactively undermine our moral high ground from the 2000 election.

    Because of what's going on right now, they can credibly say "Democrats only gave those impassioned speeches in 2000 because they cared about their guy winning, nothing more."

    Yep. (5.00 / 4) (#23)
    by lilburro on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:22:25 PM EST
    They're spinning words from eight years ago.  This is a tactic I can see coming from Hillary.  But I think Obama can't fight fire with fire on this issue.  He'll probably say their attack is 'sad.'  And it is.  We'll see how long that holds up though when every talking head from here to Toledo is parroting this article.  Republicans love making us look like moral goofballs.

    [ Parent ]
    And by 'tactic coming from Hillary' (5.00 / 0) (#33)
    by lilburro on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:26:56 PM EST
    I mean I can see her being really good at responding in kind.  Her campaign is mostly based on how awful the past 8 years were, and she relishes a good anti-Bush zinger.

    [ Parent ]
    The Republicans penalized (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by MKS on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:33:18 PM EST
    their Florida and Michigan delegations by stripping away half of their delegates....Something like that will come out of this weekend's meeting.  The Republicans will have no advantage on the issue.

    The Republicans just want to drag this out.....They are today taunting Obama that McCain actually had more money on hand at the end of April (counting RNC and DNC money) because Obama has had to spend so much in the still-ongoing Primary.  The Republicans are fairly transparent here.

    [ Parent ]

    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by RalphB on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:15:48 PM EST
    Republicans will have no advantage on the issue

    You seem to fail to understand that they have the issue right now and won't drop it.  The DNC rules were essentially like the GOP, but we didn't follow them.  They actually followed their own rules and came out on top. The DNC looks quite craven here.

    [ Parent ]

    And the GOP also was fair (none / 0) (#162)
    by Cream City on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:11:09 PM EST
    in following its rules re the other states that went early, too -- they also have only half of their delegates.

    But none of the states lost all of their delegates with the GOP, which didn't allow one candidate's supporters such as Dawson and Brazile in the DNC to alter the rules for their own nefarious reasons.

    The GOP has the moral high ground in this -- and that's why I'm no longer a Dem.  I no longer have a party.  Why bother?  Dems are no better; they're actually worse now in how they treat their base.

    [ Parent ]

    Probably worse this cycle (none / 0) (#170)
    by RalphB on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:55:05 PM EST
    but, until Bush, the Religious Right got precious little for their support of the GOP.  Mainly they got flag waving and empty words.  With McCain, they'll probably get nothing.  Wonder if they'll bolt the GOP someday?

    [ Parent ]
    "they cared about their guy (5.00 / 0) (#53)
    by talex on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:35:09 PM EST
    winning nothing more"

    Yeah but now today "they" are the Obama campaign.

    Just think of all those disenfranchised Obama voters in Florida whose votes he does not want/need counted.

    But then of course had Obama won Florida yo all know he would want to count Florida's votes to pad his lead because he is the Unity Guy.

    [ Parent ]

    That's Long Been My Fear (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by BDB on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:47:08 PM EST
    It will become almost impossible for the Democrats to complain about 2000.  They stopped counting the votes, but the rules as decided by the Supreme Court (which like the DNC decides them) didn't require them to be counted.  

    The potential low point for me will be if Clinton manages to win the popular vote and then Al Gore endorses Obama.  That would be the ultimate reversal and I fully expect it in this up is down, down is up campaign.  

    [ Parent ]

    That would end it for me. (5.00 / 4) (#138)
    by oldpro on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:23:15 PM EST
    I would never be a Democrat again.

    Never.

    That would be the ultimate betrayal...not of the Clintons, but of his own 8 years in executive government.  It would prove that he should not have been president, after all...could not be trusted with the most basic of values.

    [ Parent ]

    I've said it here before (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by cmugirl on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:19:51 PM EST
    If the DNC screws this up (which they will), I don't ever want to hear Dean, Brazile, or anybody from the Obama camp or his supporters talk about how the 2000 election was stolen.

    Anyone who brings it up should get an automatic electric shock, IMO.

    Realizing your sh!t stinks is always painful. (5.00 / 4) (#17)
    by davnee on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:21:00 PM EST
    The moral high ground is gone.  If it was ever under Dem control at all.  As is this is politics probably not.  Funny thing though being laughed at by the R's when by all rights they should be running right now for the hills being chased by pitchforks and torches after the last eight years.

    as I've said elsewhere... (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Upstart Crow on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:24:16 PM EST
    The handwriting was on the wall in Krugman's recent column where he referred to HRC getting (potentially) the majority of the popular vote as "bragging rights" rather than a mandate.

    BTD, you're not the only one (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by janarchy on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:25:21 PM EST
    I'm expecting this to become a biiiiig issue come September if Obama gets the nomination. The Republicans are going to show what pathetic, snivelling hypocrites the Democratic party is (esp anyone who actually championed the 2000 fight who is now in the tank for Obama). Sadly, they'll deserve it all.

    Somehow knowing I'll be saying 'I told you so' doesn't really make me happy.

    What eff head (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:28:25 PM EST
    Did the Gore team WANt clinton there? She would have been there in a heart beat.

    no they didn't, or they (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by cpinva on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:53:06 PM EST
    would have had them there all along.

    Did the Gore team WANt clinton there? She would have been there in a heart beat.

    in fact, if you'll recall, al gore was running as a sort of "not clinton" clinton. he kept both of them out of his campaign, even when it became obvious (to everyone but the gore campaign, apparently) that having them in it would help far more than it would harm.

    given the economy and favored position in the world that the US enjoyed at the end of 8 years of clintons in the white house, al gore's campaign should have been a cake walk, and FL merely a footnote in history.

    thanks to the bungling of his campaign managers, and the incessant lies of the MSM, it wasn't. frankly, i'd take any criticism of sen. clinton, by a former gore campaign staffer, with a huge grain of salt.

    [ Parent ]

    bungling of campaign managers. (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by ccpup on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:25:59 PM EST
    you mean Donna Brazile?  :-)

    [ Parent ]
    Remember too (5.00 / 3) (#141)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:27:19 PM EST
    that Gore had DONNA BRAZILLE! Yes, it now seems obvious that she is involved in every stupid move the Dems make. She was even involved in the Dukakis campaign in 1988. Yes, the one that lost 40 states. When oh when is the party going to get smart enough to stop listening to these losers?

    [ Parent ]
    Indeed (none / 0) (#142)
    by BDB on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:28:12 PM EST
    That was the whole point of choosing Lieberman, to show that Gore wasn't Clinton and would pick the Dem who scolded Big Bad Bill.  Well, Big Bad Bill would've kicked little Georgie's butt.

    The entire thing was ridiculous, people had backed Clinton through the impeachment.  They elected more dems in 1998. They weren't going to not vote for Gore because his boss got b-own.  Only the media thought that and the Gore mistake was listening to them.

    Although that was hardly his ownly mistake.  His campaign theme about fighting the powerful might not have been the best selection for a guy who had been Vice President for eight years.

    [ Parent ]

    And she was not a senator then (none / 0) (#164)
    by Cream City on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:16:22 PM EST
    and it would have been very bad protocol for a First Lady of the land -- not of the Dems but of the land -- to weigh in on this one, for pity's sake.

    What an a***ole that Mark Nicholas is.  More evidence for me that the Obamans are so not ready on day one and -- like their candidate who does a hip hop routine on video to wipe the former First Lady off his shoulder and show -- they have no sense of the decorum required for the residents of the White House.  

    Such matters are crucial in dealings with the rest of the world.  Our reputation will sink farther, if these bozos win.

    [ Parent ]

    Happily we have a response (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by rilkefan on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:28:32 PM EST
    The Dems were right in 2000, HRC is right now, Lowry is a hack (if reforming on e.g. the war iirc).

    How easily we become (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by cloudy on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:29:44 PM EST
    that which we once despised.

    Don't count me (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Cate on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:38:46 PM EST
    in that....my character is still intact.

    [ Parent ]
    Oh no! (5.00 / 8) (#64)
    by Steve M on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:37:23 PM EST
    Poor helpless Obama.  What will he do, in the face of this dastardly plan?

    Gosh, maybe just seat the delegates, since it seems to make no difference in the results anyway?

    No, no, why do that!  Far better to whine about how that evil woman is wrecking everything.

    Better call Dudley DoRight...Nellbama is in (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:51:00 PM EST
    dire straits... :)

    [ Parent ]
    Nobody Is Going to Say Nicer Things (5.00 / 9) (#70)
    by BDB on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:41:20 PM EST
    about the Clintons than the Republican party this year.  In addition to Florida/Michigan, you can also bet that the people who will finally defend the Clintons against the vile charges of racism will be GOP operatives.  About the time the GOP does something truly racist and disgusting, you can bet the defense will be "that's what the Obama camp says about every criticism.  They said Bill and Hillary Clinton were racists.  That's right, Bill and Hillary Clinton."

    The GOP is smart enough to take the way Obama has run this campaign and use it to beat the crap out of him.  And the worst part of it is that a lot of it will be TRUE.  

    Yep, at least swiftboating (none / 0) (#165)
    by Cream City on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:18:11 PM EST
    required harrrd worrrrk to come up with such crap on Kerry.  Obama must be putting the GOP creative class out of work; he creates the ad scripts for them.

    [ Parent ]
    Count the Votes (5.00 / 0) (#75)
    by camellia on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:43:02 PM EST
    and then decide how to apportion them FAIRLY!  

    Apart from that though -- if Obama gets the nomination, I will not vote this year.  I will not vote for McCain and I will not cast a vote for president (unless I can write in a name) although I realize that by not voting in my purple state, I am essentially casting my vote for McCain.  I will not vote for the Dems because I no longer believe that they have anything to offer me.  The performance of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi over the past two years has been nothing less than pathetic; Howard Dean, for whom I would have voted for president, has disappointed me greatly with his muddling of the primary process; Kerry -- what can I say?  I gave money to him specifically so that he could fight the thefts at the end,  only to see him give a gentlemanly wave as he left the scene;  Obama -- I do not feel the magic, perhaps because I am too old.  

    I have decided that I will refrain from political activity now and in the future until there is a political party in which I can believe.  The Democrats certainly are NOT it.

    So -- I am left with the mantra -- Count The Votes!  Isn't this where we came in, in 2000?

    We truly are through the ... (5.00 / 3) (#78)
    by Robot Porter on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:44:51 PM EST
    the looking glass when Rich Lowry makes sense.

    Other than that, I'm with BTD ....

    Speechless.

    What can you say? (5.00 / 6) (#83)
    by OrangeFur on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:45:51 PM EST
    He's right.

    The Democrats are just like the Republicans--it turns out that we don't want to count all the votes, only the votes that are for us. I thought that the whole time we were opposing these voter ID laws, it was because the right to vote was sacrosanct. That most of the voters who would benefit from our opposition would vote for us was a happy side effect.

    But no, that wasn't the case. The political benefits were the motives, and the principle was just a cover. If those laws made it harder for the wealthy and conservative to vote, we probably wouldn't have opposed them.

    The right to vote is sacrosanct. I don't care if the legislatures that moved the primaries were controlled by Democrats, Republicans, or Martians. Even if every single legislator was acting under direct orders from Hillary Clinton, and every voter in Michigan and Florida wanted to move the primary date up, you cannot take away their votes. Ever.

    I thought that this was a core Democratic value. Like universal health care. I guess times have changed.

    Reply: What can you say? (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by befuddledvoter on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:50:09 PM EST
    I did not think voting was a core Democratic principle, I thought is was a CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEE.

    [ Parent ]
    You're right. (none / 0) (#114)
    by OrangeFur on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:58:36 PM EST
    I guess what I meant was that I thought supporting the Constitution was a core Democratic value.

    [ Parent ]
    These are crazy times (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by befuddledvoter on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:47:38 PM EST
    My favorite articles this primary season have been written by Republicans:  Pat Buchanon on the excoriation of Geraldine Ferraro by the Democratic establishment; Newt Gingrich on Obama's Race speech.  Now we have this above statement.  It's like a breath of fresh air!  Who would have thought?  God, I cannot believe this!!  

    Suicide by R (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by oldpro on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:18:33 PM EST
    ...giving them the ammunition, loading the gun for them and pointing it at our own Democratic Party head...then daring them to pull the trigger.

    [ Parent ]
    Don't dare the GOP (none / 0) (#157)
    by RalphB on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:46:52 PM EST
    They'll gleefully pull the trigger, over and over.

    [ Parent ]
    Well there ya go. (none / 0) (#176)
    by oldpro on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:24:50 AM EST
    First with the obvious.

    [ Parent ]
    That's funny (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by Nadai on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:59:11 PM EST
    You seem to be making it about "How can we use Florida and Michigan to help Obama and hurt Hillary".  I guess the notion of actually counting the frigging votes is sooooo 2000.

    No the destroyers (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by txpolitico67 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:01:54 PM EST
    of the Democratic party will be the DNC themselves.  The 'typical' Donna Brazile and company have said that rural white voters and Hispanics can sit this one out.

    Glad to oblige ya lady.  I will take my Hispanic a55 over to the GOP and ask them if they would like my vote, since the DNC wants only two kinds of voters:  Black and elitists.

    Hmmmmmmm...wonder why they would want THAT combination?

    And spare US your melodramatics.  Clearly you're one of the many who see no difference in the Clinton years vs the Bush ones.

    I hope you are choking those gas prices.

    Censoring the truth? (5.00 / 0) (#120)
    by pie on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:02:32 PM EST
    What is truth?

    Obama won't win in November.

    Anyone else getting sick of the trolls (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by Eleanor A on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:03:53 PM EST
    and their "censoring" comments?

    The site rules are pretty clear, friend.  You don't like it (and I quote) "start your own blog."  ;)

    As long as they understand (5.00 / 0) (#146)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:49:21 PM EST
    every score they make is another point against ever getting some of us from looking at their candidate, fine.

    I named a couple of them in headings on another post in hopes Jeralyn will just shut off their accounts.

    [ Parent ]

    Shorter Lowry (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:40:50 PM EST
    If you liked Bush and CO in 2000, you'll love the DNC in 2008.

    Voting in a primary is a US Constitutional right (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by wurman on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:12:03 PM EST
    It is unfortunate that a few silly people have been able to post false comments about the constitutionality of voting rights be a US citizen.  It is a constitutional right, it is absolute, without exception.

    The Constitution puts all the control of elections in the hands of the state legislatures, and when a state establishes an election for some thing, any thing, a school levy, then all of the protections of the US Constitution & the Code of Federal Regulations & the Voting Rights Act (for some states) & the race, sex & age amendments come into full force & bearing on the election.

    It is only the caucuses that are not covered by the Constitution.  The primaries are elections put into force by the states.

    It's also unfortunate that the false posts can stand as if they are facts while a low-info voter like myself has to go search references from the fact-based reality.

    Washington Secretary of State (link)

    News Release
    Issued: February 23, 2004   [note the date]

    OLYMPIA...The United States Supreme Court today upheld a federal court decision that declared Washington's blanket primary unconstitutional. The U.S. Supreme Court denied Washington's petition for "writ of certiorari" killing the state's nearly 70-year-old blanket primary.

    "This is the end of the line for Washington's blanket primary," said Secretary of State Sam Reed. "But it is not the end of voters' rights in this state. I will work tirelessly to protect the privacy of our citizens' political preferences and to ensure their right to vote for the person, not the party. These rights are the foundation of Washington's democracy, and we must preserve them."

    The constitutionality of Washington's blanket primary was most recently challenged in Washington State Democratic Party, et al., v. Sam Reed. The lawsuit, filed in the summer of 2000 by our state's major political parties, followed a U.S. Supreme Court decision that ruled California's blanket primary unconstitutional.

    Washington Secretary of State (different link)

    U.S. Supreme Court reinstates Washington's Top Two Primary  

    News Release
    Issued: March 18, 2008   [note the date]

    Calling the decision an extraordinary victory for voters, Secretary of State Sam Reed and Attorney General Rob McKenna today applauded the U.S. Supreme Court for upholding Washington's wide open, Top Two Primary. The 7-2 decision handed down today follows years of court battles over the primary and the rights of voters to choose any candidate on the ballot. In a Top Two Primary, voters do not have to declare any party affiliation, and can vote for any candidate, regardless of the candidate's political party preference.  In today's decision, the Court rejected the political parties' claims that this type of primary is unconstitutional.
    [snip]
    The Court concluded that the Top Two Primary is not a nominating process, is not intended to pick each party's nominee for the General Election.  Rather, the purpose of a Top Two Primary is to winnow the number of candidates to two, allowing voters to select the two most popular candidates to advance to the General Election.  The two candidates with the greatest support advance to the General, regardless of party preference and regardless of whether they are a party's nominee or preferred candidate.

    Primary elections are constitutionally protected.

    Once you come up with a Obama MI popular number (3.66 / 3) (#22)
    by jcsf on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:22:19 PM EST
    Clinton will not have the largest popular vote count.

    If you give Obama no popular vote for MI, that is simply dishonest.  As would be estimating nothing for the caucus states.

    hark, what do i hear? ah yes, twilight zoe (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by hellothere on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:34:17 PM EST
    music. i won't go. you can't make me. the no counts are leading the way. good bye

    [ Parent ]
    Do you have a point to make here (1.00 / 1) (#61)
    by jcsf on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:36:46 PM EST
    If so, what is it?

    [ Parent ]
    if you don't get it, then anything else i (5.00 / 3) (#63)
    by hellothere on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:37:21 PM EST
    write won't be understood either.

    [ Parent ]
    There is no spoon (3.00 / 2) (#39)
    by jericho4119 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:29:02 PM EST
    The response is to not concede the point.  Start with the knowledge that any GOP talking point is by default a lie.  Then, commence the search for the truth, all the while activating your immuno-response system.

    MI did not have a contest, as only one candidate was listed on the ballot.  In what competitive endeavor do we only have one competitor and still call it a contest?  To apportion the MI delegates based on those results is to deny that there is a single Obama supporter in the entire state - not a likely scenario.

    Every vote in Florida will be counted.  That has never been in question.  The only Florida question is "how will delegates be apportioned according to these votes?"  It goes without saying, but this is not a comparable situation to the 2000 Florida Presidential election.  In that case, actual votes were not counted, due to overvotes/undervotes and a host of other balloting shenanigans.  Whomever was declared the winner in Florida in 2000, was always going to be granted the entire slate of electoral college delegates.  

    Any penalty that is nominally applied to both MI and FL does not disenfranchise a single voter,  as the overall delegates needed for the nomination are also adjusted proportionally.

    Reawakening the nightmare scenario from 2000 is a dangerous act by Clinton; she is positioning her primary opponent on the same side as Bush.  How will she remove that stain, if Obama is the nominee?.

    I got an easier solution (5.00 / 9) (#43)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:30:29 PM EST
    COUNT THE VOTES!!!!!!!!

    [ Parent ]
    You also have to have a fair election (1.00 / 0) (#74)
    by MKS on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:42:48 PM EST
    I recognize that people differ on whether Michigan and Florida were fair elections.....

    But the principle of counting votes from fair elections remains.....It is more than just counting votes....

    [ Parent ]

    Then Obama should not have opposed recounts (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by Democratic Cat on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:45:25 PM EST
    You can't say the election was unfair (oh, and why? Because I was a nimrod and took my name off the ballot), and then oppose the opportunity to hold a better election, and then say we can't count any votes.

    Well, you can say it, but it's gibberish.

    [ Parent ]

    Re-votes are a bad idea (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by MKS on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:55:20 PM EST
    in general.....It opens a can of worms about re-dos....

    Seating half the delegation is a compromise that both enforces the rules and seats delegates according to the vote....And it does seem that is where this headed....

    [ Parent ]

    Oh, and encouraging (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by Eleanor A on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:39:02 PM EST
    GOP legislatures to toy with the Dem nominating process by penalizing states where the Repubs move primaries ISN'T going to set a precedent?

    I have a bridge to sell in just your color...

    [ Parent ]

    Oops, revotes, not recounts. (none / 0) (#82)
    by Democratic Cat on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:45:50 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Oh the ironies (5.00 / 0) (#50)
    by lilburro on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:33:39 PM EST
    of hinging your campaign on the pledged delegate count:

    "Every vote in Florida will be counted.  That has never been in question.  The only Florida question is 'how will delegates be apportioned according to these votes?'"

    That's not an important question?

    [ Parent ]

    Amusing (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by Steve M on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:35:51 PM EST
    If only Hillary had thought to take her name off the ballot in Wisconsin.  Then you would be deploying your talents for self-righteous rhetoric against the notion of awarding any delegates based on that "Soviet-style election," I'm quite certain.

    [ Parent ]
    take the florida problem to the cause of the (5.00 / 0) (#58)
    by hellothere on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:36:15 PM EST
    problem, the dnc and the obama campaign. stop your false accusations.

    [ Parent ]
    So, he gets to be (5.00 / 4) (#72)
    by Democratic Cat on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:42:26 PM EST
    anti-democratic, and oppose counting the votes, and Clinton is just supposed to shut up about it and hope no one notices?

    It's not on Clinton to rehabilitate Obama as a candidate if he wins the primary. It's on him to convince me and many others why we should vote for a Democrat who appears to be against democracy.

    [ Parent ]

    You lie. (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by Cream City on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:30:33 PM EST
    Probably from ignorance, but it is no excuse.

    For starters, there were four candidates on the ballot in Michigan.  Now, go check every other lie you were paid to blog here, and then come on back when you're ready to research -- and contribute.

    [ Parent ]

    Excuse me (none / 0) (#174)
    by cmugirl on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:57:05 AM EST
    Once again, an Obama talking point is wrong:

    MI did not have a contest, as only one candidate was listed on the ballot.

    Wrong.  Roughly HALF the candidates were on the ballot.  Obama, Richardson, Edwards, and Biden chose to remove their names at the last minute to pander to Iowa voters.  But Clinton, Kucinich, Dodd, and Gravel were still on the ballot.

    No wonder Obama is going to lose - can't even get his people to keep the talking points straight!

    [ Parent ]

    A lot of the eye-rolling (1.83 / 6) (#12)
    by mattt on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:19:05 PM EST
    is due to the transparent self-interest in Clinton's crusade for FL/MI, which didn't begin until after she realized she needed their votes.

    Benen fisked Lowry earlier today:
    Carpetbaggerreport

    Clinton backers aren't winning any credibility by trumpeting more and more right-wing arguments....Rove, now Lowry.

    this is not about Obama or (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by bjorn on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:21:59 PM EST
    Clinton (btw you must have missed the earlier post about the ROOLZ)

    it is the voters, stupid.

    [ Parent ]

    No. "It's Obama, Stupid. " (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by dianem on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:26:46 PM EST
    The entire system was stacked in his favor, because the party is hungry for the young voter's and for black voter's to start caring about elections. The assumption is that their stalwarts will vote for the Dem candidate just to oppose Bush, even though Bush isn't running. Once again the Dems have arrogantly decided to ignore the voter's in the interest's of political gamesmanship. Maybe the Republican Party deserves to win. They are terrible at governing, but they certainly are better as listening to people and at least pretending to care.

    [ Parent ]
    For over a year before this campaign I was (5.00 / 2) (#149)
    by Valhalla on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:52:27 PM EST
    telling people that the Democrats need to get mean to start winning presidential elections.

    But I meant to the Republicans, not their own party.

    [ Parent ]

    Hacktackular (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by rilkefan on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:22:19 PM EST
    "I don't necessarily blame Clinton backers for trying to help Clinton out at the RBC meeting on Saturday, but I am curious how many of them are demonstrating because they're genuinely outraged over the dispute between the DNC and two state parties over convention delegates or because they're hoping to give their favored candidate an edge. There's nothing especially wrong with the latter, but I get the sense that many want to pretend it's the prior. It's not about Clinton, they say, but about an unyielding commitment to honoring non-binding primary votes in states that broke party rules." [emphasis added]

    Amazingly unselfaware mindreading/mendacity.

    [ Parent ]

    you can take those rules and ! (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by hellothere on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:31:13 PM EST
    when the dnc takes obama's sc votes away for the same thing, then you come back and make your case. till then buzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

    [ Parent ]
    Some of us... (5.00 / 6) (#24)
    by kredwyn on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:22:57 PM EST
    like myself are more interested in actually having the votes count.

    You can take that eye roll and shove it.

    [ Parent ]

    You call that a fisking? (5.00 / 8) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:24:10 PM EST
    He actually made Lowry's point. It shows hw there really is no response to lowry. Benene writes:

    Lowry may not remember, but Dems have long argued that 2000 was a "stolen" election, not because Gore won the popular vote, but because Gore won Florida. . . . [A]ll that mattered was counting the votes in Florida, to see who actually won the state.

    Um, I think clinton is calling for COUNTING THE VOTES. That is Lowry's point. Benen's post is an embarrassment. It is Wingnut stupid.

    [ Parent ]

    what fisking actually is (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by bigbay on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:57:43 PM EST
    It's a right-wing slur used to denigrate Robert Fisk, one of the finest left oriented journalists in the world. It is also based on an incident in which civilians in Afghanistan died, and Fisk was attacked, in response. It's a disgusting bit of word play based upon the pain of others. I wish progressives would not use it and give it currency.

    [ Parent ]
    Thank you (none / 0) (#122)
    by mattt on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:03:05 PM EST
    for the information.  I wasn't aware of the origin and you're right, I won't use it anymore.

    [ Parent ]
    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Steve M on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:26:04 PM EST
    Pretty hilarious that you would criticize the use of right-wing arguments in a post where you use the word "fisking" - a term coined in reference to Andrew Sullivan's trashing of a liberal journalist.

    [ Parent ]
    Excuse me (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:27:09 PM EST
    It is Benen and you who have become the Republicans who do not want to count the votes.

    What a effing idiot you are.

    [ Parent ]

    You're not excused. (1.00 / 1) (#108)
    by mattt on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:56:53 PM EST
    I don't see where Benen says "Don't count the votes."  I don't say "don't count the votes;" I think there's a reasonabe argument to seat Florida as-is as part of an overall compromise.

    Benen says, and I agree, that the popular vote should not trump the process that was agreed upon in advance by all parties.  And that something doesn't smell right about a good portion of the current outrage directed at the DNC

    Not all the outrage - I'm sure there's a good number of people out there who really care about the voters in FL and MI.  I'm sure the same people care equally about voters in the caucus states, who would be dis