Now That It Is "Over," About FL And MI

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:25:35 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This:

If the Obama campaign believes, very reasonably, that he is virtually assured of the nomination, the time is now to agree to seat the Florida and Michigan delegations.

It is time for Obama and his supporters to realize that NOT seating Florida and Michigan hurts him in terms of unifying the Party and in terms of the general election in Florida especially.

The time is right Senator Obama, agree to the seating of the Florida and Michigan delegations.

By Big Tent Democrat

Comments now closed.

< Georgia Execution: The Death Penalty Resumes | Ignoring "The Problem" >

The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news
Menu

Home | About | RSS
E-Mail | Comment Policy

Premium Ads

Blog Ads

Search
Login

Make a new account

Existing Users

Username:
Password:
Creator and Principal Author
- Jeralyn E. Merritt
Contributors
- T. Christopher Kelly
- Armando Llorens
TL Alumni
- John Wesley Hall

Contribute To TalkLeft

Sections
Site Credits
- Hosted by Scoophost
- TalkLeft Graphics by C.L., Our Man in Hollywood
- TalkLeft Header Graphic by Monk
- Template Design based on WordPress Relaxation Theme
- Powered by Scoop
Legal
- All Content Copyright ©2002-2008. Reprints only by permission from TalkLeft.com.
- Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.
- TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.
Stats
"The pump don't work 'cause the vandals took the handles"
© 1965 Bob Dylan

Now That It Is "Over," About FL And MI | 277 comments (277 topical)

Scorched earth (5.00 / 4) (#1)
by Kathy on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:27:43 PM EST

politicking means they ignore FL and MI until the bitter end.

I do not expect reason, or anything that will save the dem party, from these jokers.

Which is fine, because I'm the demographic that they don't really need anymore.

white blue collar and Hispanic Dems (5.00 / 2) (#138)
by Josey on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:02:36 PM EST

no longer needed to win Dem presidential elections.
Surely McCain got the memo.
Brazile was on Nightline last night and never offered an apology.

[ Parent ]

Headline today (5.00 / 1) (#181)
by DJ on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:13:20 PM EST

John McCain courts Blue Collar Democrats in Ohio, Penn, Kentucky.
Well because they tend towards socially conservative positions he will no doubt pick up a lot.
DNC and other leaders have made a serious error in judgment.
I want Pelosi, Dean et al out of power. Knowing I cannot vote for Obama because of the race-baiting and dishonesty (not to mention I think he's weak). Do I just support my local dems and push for the others to get out?

[ Parent ]

: Obama should have his micro marketing trolls (5.00 / 1) (#220)
by Salo on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:23:09 PM EST

swarm over Ohio and Penn and Missouri and start yelling about disloyal Dems and Roe V Wade being threatened by those disloyal Dems.
yah that'll work.
Oh wait, have those micro marketing trolls swarm over Ohio and Penn and Missouri and repeat that Obama is ambivalent about abortion rights.
I hope noone noticed that slip.

[ Parent ]
: Ain't too Proud (5.00 / 1) (#236)
by hlr on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:29:42 PM EST

John McCain courts Blue Collar Democrats in Ohio, Penn, Kentucky
to beg for Donna Brazile's leftovers. LOL.

[ Parent ]

Me too (5.00 / 1) (#235)
by BernieO on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:29:16 PM EST

The message coming from the Democratic party to the voters of Fla and Mich. .....We don't need your votes. Ditto for older Americans, women, etc.
Smart policy considering African Americans make up only 13% of the country. There is a reliable hard core right wing base of about 30% (the amount that stays loyal to Bush). Even if a third of them dislike McCain enough to vote in the GE and every African American votes they are still outnumbered. Obama lost the white vote in NC by 20 points and he also lost independents, according to NPR.

[ Parent ]

Kantor trick and AA vote (5.00 / 1) (#240)
by Stellaaa on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:31:23 PM EST

The Kantor dirty trick needs to be examined. From radio etc, it played big in the AA vote. This was as any Rove dirty trick.

[ Parent ]

I agree its time to agree to seat them (5.00 / 2) (#5)
by TruthMatters on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:29:33 PM EST

but not as is, I doubt the DNC is ready to say yep we are completely irrelevant violate our rules and we won't do crap.

probably strip FL of 1/2 their delegates, and MI that I dunno, thats harder

Why not seat them as is? If Obama (none / 0) (#33)
by MarkL on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:41:01 PM EST

cannot earn the nomination without excluding FL and MI, then he has not won convincingly. Are you saying he can't get enough delegates---still?

[ Parent ]

Why not? How about Obama wasn't on the MI ballot. (3.00 / 2) (#45)
by kindness on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:43:52 PM EST

How is it that you can't understand that seating the Michigan delegates is wrong because the only Democrat on the ballot was Hillary.

I think they shouldn't seat them at all, either FL or MI

[ Parent ]

please stop lying (5.00 / 2) (#104)
by Nasarius on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:54:31 PM EST

Hillary was absolutely not the only one on the ballot in Michigan.

[ Parent ]

Hillary WAS NOT the ONLY (5.00 / 1) (#131)
by vicsan on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:01:08 PM EST

Democrat on the ballot. Dodd and Kucinich were also on it. Stop lying.

[ Parent ]

Kucinich? (none / 0) (#188)
by decih on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:14:29 PM EST

I don't remember if Kucinich was on the ballot when I went into vote, but according to this link, he was planning to remove it:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/10/10/five_democratic_hopefuls_pull_names_off_michig an_ballot/

Perhaps you're thinking of Gravel instead?

[ Parent ]

: Update (none / 0) (#199)
by decih on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:16:51 PM EST

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_Democratic_primary,_2008
Okay, Kucinich wanted off, but wasn't able to remove his name.

[ Parent ]
: Kucinich (none / 0) (#208)
by Step Beyond on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:18:12 PM EST

He missed the deadline to remove his name.

[ Parent ]

Why can't you understand that Obama (none / 0) (#49)
by MarkL on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:44:56 PM EST

chose to take himself off the MI ballot to avoid the humiliation of a loss? No rule required him to do so. That aside, you didn't answer my question.

[ Parent ]

In 2000 (none / 0) (#78)
by RLMcCauley on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:50:09 PM EST

Al Gore and Bill Bradley removed their names from the MI ballot for the same reason that Edwards and Obama did this year. And it was not a fear of some humiliating defeat.

[ Parent ]

Gore was running an uncontested election (5.00 / 2) (#117)
by Salo on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:56:26 PM EST

Bradley was that bad.

Edwards was ensuring support in Iowa.

Obama was avoiding a crushing Clinton win and ensuring support in Iowa.

[ Parent ]

Howd that work for Gore in the GE? (5.00 / 1) (#135)
by catfish on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:02:06 PM EST

I can't remember.

[ Parent ]

: Gore won MI... (none / 0) (#226)
by RLMcCauley on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:25:06 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Florida (none / 0) (#116)
by Step Beyond on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:56:25 PM EST

Then why not remove himself from the Florida ballot? He had plenty of time prior to the list being submitted to the Dept of State on Nov 7. He didn't even attempt it.

And before you say anything about the affidavit, that is only required AFTER the Nov 7th submission. He could have asked the FDP not to submit it to the Sec of State or asked the Presidential Candidate Selection Committee to remove his name. Both actions would not have required him to state he wasn't going to be a candidate at the convention.

[ Parent ]

It's my understanding that none (none / 0) (#229)
by RLMcCauley on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:25:56 PM EST

of them could do that in FL.

[ Parent ]

: Your understanding is faulty (none / 0) (#241)
by tree on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:31:46 PM EST

There was a deadline after which they could not remove their names without being banned from ballot in November, but Obama and the others had plenty of time before that to remove their names if they so desired.

[ Parent ]
: Florida ballot rules (none / 0) (#263)
by Step Beyond on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:38:42 PM EST

I feel a little guilty about that. Last October I misread or rather hastily read the rules and put forth that idea. I'm probably not the only one.
I failed to take into account that the affidavit doesn't become required until the names are submitted to the Department of State on Nov 7th.
Each party submits its list by the end of October. The FDP voted around October 28 or 29 (I can't remember exactly but it was around the end of the convention). At that point the FDP could have added or removed any candidate they wanted (they tried to get Gore to agree to be on it but his staff declined). Any candidate could have asked to be removed. No affidavit would have been required at that point. Then they submitted their list to the Secretary of State by Oct 31. After this point I see no means of adding any candidate names only deleting them.
At that point the list goes to the Presidential Candidate Selection Committee, which the Secretary of State chairs. They then can remove anyone who doesn't want to be on the list or they don't want on the list as long as everyone in the same political party on the committee agrees (only Dems vote on Dems list and Repubs on Repub list). Again this would not require an affidavit. This occurs on Nov 6.
Afterwords on Nov 7, they submit the list to the Department of State who mails each candidate to tell them they are on the ballot. Only way at this point to be removed from the ballot is to send an affidavit by Nov 12 saying you will not be a candidate at the convention.
So prior to Nov 7, the candidates have 2 separate groups they could approach to have their names removed from the primary ballot without having to swear not to be a candidate at the convention.

[ Parent ]

I have better things to do than argue with you. (none / 0) (#114)
by kindness on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:55:49 PM EST

I just gave you my reason why I think Michigan's shouldn't be seated.

But I won't try to stop you from making things up.

[ Parent ]

: A downrating for continued untruths (5.00 / 1) (#184)
by Cream City on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:13:56 PM EST

so either provide evidence to support your claim or stop it. Untruths just clutter up and even confuse and prevent progress in conversation here.

[ Parent ]
: Facts are stubborn things. (none / 0) (#125)
by MarkL on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:58:05 PM EST

Obama's decision to remove his name from the MI primary was absolutely crucial in his stategy. Had he contested and lost Michigan, he would have been in a perilous situation.
All this is beside the point---since Obama will apparently win the nomination even if MI is seated as is, there is no good reason not to do so.

[ Parent ]

And your name is Kindness...ironic, no? (none / 0) (#71)
by leis on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:48:59 PM EST

[ Parent ]

I'm going to vote for which ever Democrat wins the (none / 0) (#123)
by kindness on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:57:30 PM EST

nomination. Who are you going to vote for?

[ Parent ]

I'll Have To Think About That (5.00 / 1) (#174)
by MO Blue on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:11:34 PM EST

I'll have to think about his policies, his approach and his tone.

[ Parent ]

I believe the point of the post (none / 0) (#160)
by leis on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:07:43 PM EST

is that neither are legitimate when you exclude
Fl & MI.

[ Parent ]

: Would you vote for Barack if he wins? (none / 0) (#215)
by kindness on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:21:22 PM EST

I said I'd vote for Hillary if she wins. What about you?

[ Parent ]

I think (none / 0) (#191)
by AnninCA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:15:13 PM EST

I'll focus on congressional candidates instead.

Really, the president is pretty much a figure-head, anyway.

[ Parent ]

But unfortunately (none / 0) (#217)
by Rhouse on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:21:36 PM EST

with the way things are going, there won't be a real Democrat running in the GE. It seems that both parties want to nominate people who: 1) Like both Bush Sr. and Reagan, 2) Don't seem to care about LGBT issues ( not the right time to work on them ), 3) Care about anti-abortionist (feels their pain), 4) Admire Justice Roberts and his decisions. Oh last, but not least: 5) Possesses an outie not an inie ( and I'm not talking navel.)

[ Parent ]

lol* (none / 0) (#224)
by AnninCA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:24:41 PM EST

I had to think about the last point.

Seriously, I'm ready to plow back in on my own agenda.

It's now all about the Congress.

I don't much care who wins the presidency at this point.

My gal was the BEST!

Dang, she would have made history sing.

But......

She lost. So I'm onto looking at the Congress.

This could be a new and fun interesting obsession.

First order of the day.

Boot out the idiots running the party.

[ Parent ]

You see and my focus is the Supreme Court nominees (none / 0) (#237)
by kindness on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:29:53 PM EST

In my mind, that's why I think the residency is still very important.

McSame says he'll nominate more Alioto's & Roberts. Last thing we need is that type of individual(s) judging anything or anyone.

[ Parent ]

And who would Obama nominate? (none / 0) (#239)
by cmugirl on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:31:03 PM EST

Since he was so enamored of Roberts until someone told him it wasn't politically expedient to vote for him?

[ Parent ]

: If you think Hillary or Obama nominees will be as (none / 0) (#265)
by kindness on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:39:55 PM EST

bad for the Nation as John McCain....I can't help you much. I'm not sure anyone can.
To suggest that the Democratic candidate isn't important is a fallacy. Don't let your bruised ego wreck what is left of what is good about the US.

[ Parent ]
: Hmmm.... (none / 0) (#272)
by Alec82 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:44:09 PM EST

...so which is it, is he a radical leftist or a closet conservative? A Muslim in hiding or a fundamentalist Christian?
If you do not believe that Senator Obama, who taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago, will appoint more fit nominees than Senator McCain there is absolutely no other candidate for you but Senator Clinton. And it appears that a large number of her supporters feel that way: Give me Clinton, or give me McCain. Well, that is a sorry state of affairs, and you may be kicking yourselves come 2009.

[ Parent ]

It"s how I and (none / 0) (#247)
by Rhouse on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:33:29 PM EST

my wife feel, we'll look at the down ticket fights in PA and work for them. No money for the DNC from us for their screw-up.

[ Parent ]

not true (none / 0) (#164)
by The Realist on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:08:57 PM EST

Chris Dodd was also on the ballot

[ Parent ]

Obama (none / 0) (#197)
by DJ on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:15:52 PM EST

lobbied four other nominees to remove themselves from the MI ballot to hurt front runner Clinton in other states. Five different campaigns admitted to it. Look it up. More old time Obamatics.

[ Parent ]

Actually, he WAS (none / 0) (#216)
by oldpro on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:21:22 PM EST

on the ballot.

But then he went to all the trouble of removing his name from the ballot...an 'affirmative' action, as it were.

It was tactical...and now he's trying to make it pay off by crying 'not fair, not fair'...I wasn't even on the ballot. This argument should not play well with experienced Dems.

The truth is, he was afraid he'd lose without being able to explain it. Worked so far....

[ Parent ]

: Heaven knows (5.00 / 1) (#274)
by JavaCityPal on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:44:57 PM EST

if he had been on the ballot, and Hillary had taken her name off, he sure wouldn't be screaming unfair to seat the delegates on the January votes.

[ Parent ]

But they did do "crap" as you put it (none / 0) (#81)
by ineedalife on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:50:29 PM EST

They allowed the probable nomination of the candidates these states did not vote for. Not only did they nullify the voice of these states in the process they, in effect, gave them a negative vote.

The DNC should be very satisfied with themselves. At this point they are just being sadistic.

[ Parent ]

These are my thoughts exactly (none / 0) (#143)
by bjorn on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:03:40 PM EST

I did email Ms. Brazile to tell her I thought her handling of this was "scorched earth" - she told me to stay positive.

[ Parent ]

: So tell her you're *positive* (none / 0) (#234)
by tree on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:29:08 PM EST

her tactics are scorched earth.

[ Parent ]

That ship has sailed (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by dianem on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:30:20 PM EST

Florida and Michigan are either going to go for Obama or not, but I don't think that his endorsing seating their delegates when it doesn't matter is going to help him. If he had fought for their votes to count earlier, it might have mattered. Nobody likes to be written off (and I am speaking as someone who feels as if the entire leadership of the Democratic Party has written her off).

Agreed (5.00 / 1) (#93)
by ruffian on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:52:46 PM EST

The damage is done at this point and cannot be fixed. It would have been a bold gesture a month ago, but that ship is far out to sea.

Seat them or don't seat them - even in FL I don't care anymore. Obama is not going to win FL either way.

[ Parent ]

I agree with you. (5.00 / 2) (#108)
by FLVoter on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:55:09 PM EST

The DNC and Sen. Obama tried very hard not to seat FL and MI. I can't speak for MI, but for FL you are right. That ship sailed a long time ago. I have said it before the DNC did not count me, then don't count me for the GE. BTW, if I believed that Sen. Obama would actually do something about ending the war or appointing Supreme Court Justices to preserve abortion rights, then I may be able to hold my nose and vote for him. But with the revelations of Samantha Power concerning Sen. Obama's plan to end the war only a best case scenario, his statement that he does not know when life begins and that both sides have to be taken into consideration, I have no faith that he will address these issues. When you add to the mix the advisors he has surrounded himself with, I do not see President Obama as helping our current situation (foriegn and domestic). My vote must be earned and so far he has not earned it. If he is the nominee, I may sit this one out.

[ Parent ]

He's not at all safe on abortion (5.00 / 3) (#124)
by AnninCA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:57:45 PM EST

rights. Look at his comments.

Right now, other than court appts., I am not seeing a reason to vote for him.

But then, I admit, I think McCain is talking tougher than he is. I do think he's a lot more moderate than he's had to talk to soothe his own Republican base.

We'll see. As an independent, I'll be looking to both candidates in the Fall to convince me on the issues.

[ Parent ]

As a new Independent, I am seriously (5.00 / 2) (#149)
by FLVoter on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:05:25 PM EST

looking at Sen. John McCain. Everybody can disagree with me, but my vote is my own. Calling me names bringing up Supreme Court appointments, the war, the economy will not help since I do not believe either Sen. McCain or Sen. Obama will be good on any of these issues. Frankly, in my income bracket, Sen. McCain would be better for me.

[ Parent ]

You know (5.00 / 2) (#158)
by AnninCA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:07:38 PM EST

I'm starting to lean towards......work for Dems in Congress.

Let McCain be the figurehead president.

I sort of like this idea.

[ Parent ]

BTW (5.00 / 4) (#178)
by AnninCA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:13:01 PM EST

I'm in the same spot.

Obama is deadly to me financially.

I've never voted on financial issues. As my Gen-X son says, "You're totally about social issues and always have been."

I liked what someone said here today that I've figured if everyone's boat rose up, mine would, too.

I believe in that wholeheartedly.

I live in LA. I'm no bleeding heart liberal. Trust me. We have huge problems here due to the flood over the border. BUT.....we also are a state that has a huge LEGAL and highly productive Latino population. Good golly, I simply can't imagine backing a party that talks like Donna did last night.

So now, I've got financial motive to switch to Republican and not a great motivation to stay with the Democrats based on social justice principles.

I'm grieving the loss of my Democratic Party as much or more than the loss of my candidate today.

I trust Hillary will be just fine. She's a toughie.

I'm not so sure the party will be.

I'm a new "Independent," so it will take awhile to adjust to not worrying.

Not my problem anymore.

And to be honest?

Neither is Dems in FL and MI.

They will vote how they vote.

[ Parent ]

At long last, I now also understand (5.00 / 3) (#205)
by Cream City on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:17:51 PM EST

liberal fatigue. And it has cost me a lot that could have made it possible to retire "on time." I think that will be my focus now -- since self-interest is now the new order for Dems.

[ Parent ]

LOL* (5.00 / 1) (#213)
by AnninCA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:20:46 PM EST

I like it. Liberal Fatigue.

I gotta admit......my staunch Dem dad turned Republican in later years and said to me,

"You eventually just give up and vote for your pocketbook." :)

[ Parent ]

When there are no real choices, I choose (5.00 / 1) (#227)
by FLVoter on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:25:16 PM EST

my own self interest. Other dems have done it and as an independent I have no more party loyalty to sway me on social issues. With the possiblity of President Obama or President McCain time to wake up and make sure you can take care of yourself in all aspects of retirement. AARP is not that far away for me.

[ Parent ]

: Exactly (none / 0) (#276)
by AnninCA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:47:00 PM EST

and I think I've found a path to resolution today.
The presidency is much ado about nothing, anyway.
I can cut this both ways.
I'm going to focus on congressional sea

[ Parent ]

"ideology-free" (none / 0) (#246)
by hlr on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:33:14 PM EST

since self-interest is now the new order for Dems.

was your first hint.

[ Parent ]

Seating and voting (5.00 / 3) (#9)
by janarchy on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:31:08 PM EST

The current offer from Dean (and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) is that the delegations will be seated but not actually get to cast any votes. To me that's like inviting someone to your party and then saying 'sit there, but you can't eat/drink/interact'. Unless their votes get counted and the will of the voters in both states is considered, it's still a slap in the face.

And despite what I keep being told I mean, I would feel this way whether the vote favoured Clinton OR Obama. The DNC (esp Donna Brazille) seem to forget what democracy is in their rush to coronate a candidate.

It won't happen until (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by Faust on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:34:09 PM EST

it's over as opposed to "over."

It's Probably too late (5.00 / 1) (#31)
by Edgar08 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:40:13 PM EST

People are gonna know how this was played.

But the clock is still ticking.

grrrr. IT IS NOT OVER. (5.00 / 4) (#36)
by kangeroo on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:41:46 PM EST

i am so angry at the media, mcgovern, and all of the obama concern trolls out here today in full force.

these are the same damn people who bring democrats down and make us lose. these are the same people who quit when the chips are down. these are the same people who won't fight when it matters.

BTD, i love you, but i won't let even you demoralize me. i refuse to fall for the same old repackaged WWTSBQ bullsh*t just because it's being said for the 1,000,001st time. hard things are put in our way, not to stop us, but to call out our courage and strength.

i just donated $50 to hillary's campaign. somebody please match me. this woman is fighting for all of us, for our country, and for the world. obama is fighting for himself. and you doubt which side you should be on??!!

RISE, HILLARY, RISE

: My cat just matched you! (5.00 / 2) (#68)
by Kathy on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:48:29 PM EST

Come on, folks--rally 'round.
Andgarden, get your hiney off your shoulders. What has changed? She was never expected to win IN. Get the spreadsheet!

[ Parent ]

Contributed again this (5.00 / 5) (#52)
by zfran on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:45:39 PM EST

morning. Some things are too important and so worth fighting for...I think "President of the United States" qualifies. GO HILLARY!!!

I think it's too late (5.00 / 1) (#53)
by katiebird on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:45:43 PM EST

Since the DNC made it clear that Obama had total control of the situation all winter and fall -- refusing revotes which would have settled the whole thing.

The DNC created this situation. Looked to Obama to solve it.

And Obama graciously allowing the 2 states to participate now is totally meaningless. All it would signal is that he believes they don't matter now.

Worse (5.00 / 1) (#66)
by Edgar08 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:48:21 PM EST

It means he expects the people he doesn't care about to show up and cheer for him.

[ Parent ]

: (nodding) (5.00 / 1) (#99)
by katiebird on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:53:42 PM EST

My mind is made up on this issue. And it's too late for the bullies to recover with dignity. They went too far.

[ Parent ]

Did anyone catch Windbag Bill Bennett (5.00 / 3) (#64)
by DCDemocrat on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:47:57 PM EST

on CNN last evening? He was going on about all the ways that Obama has won. He's won the most delegates. He's won the most popular votes. He's won (get this) all the big states.

These people are not held to any standards.

Consider the source and change the channel. (5.00 / 1) (#69)
by Buckeye on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:48:32 PM EST

[ Parent ]

exactly (none / 0) (#95)
by CanadianDem on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:52:49 PM EST

Fox seems to be the most legit outfit right now for us.

[ Parent ]

: I agree (none / 0) (#120)
by Buckeye on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:57:12 PM EST

What is the temperature in hell right now????

[ Parent ]

Shocking republicans trying to make sure Obama... (5.00 / 3) (#86)
by Marvin42 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:51:26 PM EST

is the nominee. Can't believe it.

You think McCain is picking out the furniture he wants in the Oval office on his next visit to the WH?

[ Parent ]

PA and CA will be surprised (5.00 / 1) (#100)
by kredwyn on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:53:43 PM EST

to find out that they aren't big states.

[ Parent ]

: Not to mention (none / 0) (#154)
by janarchy on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:06:20 PM EST

New York, Massachussetts and Ohio. Who knew?!

[ Parent ]

Took CNN off my Tv list (none / 0) (#232)
by alforhil on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:28:33 PM EST

I have Dish Network and asked them to un subscribe me from CNN. cant stand to watch their pundits and analysts. I am through . I used to suffer through them to see them eat crow when Hillary made it.
I cant take it any more. so talkleft is it for me..
Bill Bennet and Jeff toobin are all unberable and donna brazile is the biggest hypocrate out there.

[ Parent ]

What was (none / 0) (#261)
by Ga6thDem on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:38:07 PM EST

he doing? Celebrating a McCain presidency? I would imagine the only reason Bennett would get excited about Obama is because they think they can beat him.

[ Parent ]

Too late to matter (5.00 / 3) (#65)
by Buckeye on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:48:05 PM EST

If Obama agrees to do this only because he beleives he does not need them, they were still disenfranchised.

When the outcome is in doubt is when it matters, and the Obama campaign and Dean were just fine leaving them out. That is what ultimately matters, not the perfunctory exercise of letting their delegates participate in the convention proceedings.

Penalty Box vs Game Misconduct (5.00 / 2) (#74)
by HenryFTP on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:49:44 PM EST

The "Party Elders" apparently remain maddeningly lacking in awareness of how self-destructive their behavior has been, and it is clearly time for the Standard Bearer Presumptive to take this out of the hands of the squabbling Elders and seek to make amends with Democratic voters in Florida and Michigan.

I don't expect many Obama supporters to be magnanimous in victory, but the Standard Bearer sure needs to figure out how to do it and not just pay lip service to the idea.

Rules were broken, but they do not merit the sort of "game misconduct" or "red card" that the DNC would like to administer. It's a "yellow card", and FL and MI have spent more than enough time in the penalty box. The delegations should be fully empowered to vote for the nominees, but "punished" on procedural matters, particularly those which would be of greatest interest to the FL and MI Party officials who bear the heaviest burden of responsibility for this fiasco.

Sore loser (5.00 / 4) (#109)
by lentinel on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:55:14 PM EST

I supported Hillary Clinton in the contest between her and Obama.
I would have preferred a true progressive, but the dems and the media prevented that from happening.

What I don't, won't and can't identify with is the mantra that is beginning to be bellowed - that we who did not support Obama must rally to support him lest McCain be elected.

I can't vote for Obama.
I found his campaign, touted as something to be admired, to be despicable. I found it to be racist. I found it to be sexist. I found it to be elitist. I found it to be intolerant.

If someone, somewhere, runs for President and expresses the things I believe in, I will vote for that person. But I will not vote for the democrat just because he or she is not the republican.
Can anyone say that Johnson (50,000 dead Americans) was better than Goldwater would have been?

Nuts.

: Actually (5.00 / 1) (#165)
by misspeach2008 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:09:04 PM EST

from the perspective of 2008, Goldwater looks down right liberal. Did you catch the documentary his granddaughter did about him? It was on HBO last fall.

[ Parent ]
: I hear you (5.00 / 2) (#203)
by AnninCA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:17:29 PM EST

MI and FL are symbolic of the position that Obama's campaign put a lot of us into.
We all know the back-door tactics used. We all know why.
But he took away our reason to rally behind him when he did that.

[ Parent ]
: country divided (5.00 / 2) (#242)
by alforhil on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:31:49 PM EST

inspite of his loft rhetoric - Obama has managed to divide this country like no other.
white - black
men - women
rich - poor
educated - less educated
young - old..
in every possible way he has divided this country along with the MSMs. it is ridiculous for anyone to think he is the great uniter.

[ Parent ]

part of me wants them to keep resisting (5.00 / 1) (#128)
by Capt Howdy on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:59:05 PM EST

its evil I know.

: Human (5.00 / 1) (#139)
by AnninCA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:02:38 PM EST

not evil.
I'm highly competitive. It takes practice to lose. :)

[ Parent ]
: Some of us (5.00 / 1) (#183)
by janarchy on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:13:55 PM EST

are like our preferred candidate -- we don't take it lying down and don't give up the good fight.

[ Parent ]

Too Late (5.00 / 3) (#147)
by GMN on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:04:16 PM EST

for me. I've left the party. I'm no longer a Dem. I will not vote for Obama, and I will not give a single cent to the DNC. Obama, Brazille, Dean, Clyburn, et. al., can build their racist, affirmative action new Democratic party without me.

Obama won't do a thing (5.00 / 3) (#150)
by ruffian on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:05:39 PM EST

He'll let the rules committee do whatever it is they are going to do on May 20, or 31, or whenever it is they meet. He is not a leader. Leaders take sides and point the way, even if it is risky or sometimes rule-breaking.

The ship sailed (5.00 / 1) (#159)
by cawaltz on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:07:39 PM EST

and I don't think anyonew would see this as anymore than a political stunt and pretense at its worst.

We might as well write Florida and Michigan off if Obama gets the nod.

Who does BO need? (5.00 / 2) (#182)
by Carolyn in Baltimore on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:13:37 PM EST

I'm trying to get a handle on just who BO thinks he needs.
Not FL or MI.
Not hispanics or the working-class.
Not women. Not gays.
Not the pro-choice, pro-environment people.
Not the people who think America needs to move to single payer health care.

He was happy to need Dems-for-a-Day until some started voting for Hillary.

So who is his base?

As Paul Begala said last night (5.00 / 1) (#193)
by janarchy on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:15:31 PM EST

African Americans and egg heads. And I would add the party elite who would rather tank the entire Democratic Party than contend with the Clintons again, esp when OMG, it might mean they have to do more than collect a paycheck and fight lukewarm battles.

[ Parent ]

: honestly (none / 0) (#201)
by Capt Howdy on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:17:13 PM EST

there was never a better argument for education NOT equaling intelligence.

[ Parent ]

seems to me its red state democrats (5.00 / 1) (#195)
by Capt Howdy on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:15:51 PM EST

and the whine and cheeze crowd. it will be interesting to see how that works out for him.

[ Parent ]

The people (5.00 / 1) (#196)
by kmblue on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:15:52 PM EST

under his bus?

[ Parent ]

Well (none / 0) (#206)
by cmugirl on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:18:01 PM EST

Maybe that WOULD be a large enough number to assure victory :)

[ Parent ]

: I was thinking (none / 0) (#212)
by kmblue on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:20:17 PM EST

it would be a broad base.
Like Captain Howdy says,
I am evil and backslidin. ;)

[ Parent ]

College kids (none / 0) (#200)
by cmugirl on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:17:01 PM EST

who don't traditionally turn out, AA's, and the people in Utah, North Dakota, and Mississippi.

[ Parent ]

Anti Clinton voters (none / 0) (#275)
by Manuel on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:45:32 PM EST

The depth of anti Clinton sentiment, particularly among the Republicans, the Democratic party elite and the so called "progressive" wing of the party, can not be underestimated. If you can judge a person by the enemies they make, Hillary must be A-OK.

[ Parent ]

I've got a Newsweek from last week (5.00 / 2) (#209)
by Kathy on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:19:21 PM EST

"Losing ground"

Obama's double-digit lead in IN dropped to 7 points, they said.

What has changed?

: What changed (none / 0) (#257)
by Manuel on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:36:40 PM EST

It has been obvious for a while that the DNC and a big chunk of the Democratic party establishment are hellbent on giving the nomination to Obama. Last night Hillary needed a bigger victory in IN and a closer finish in NC to cause the party honchos to have second thoughts. It was her next to last chance and it did not happen. She is quickly running out of time. The last very, very slim hope is a huge upset in OR and that seems very unlikely. In the meantime, enough SDs may declare for Obama to make even that remote possibility moot. FL and MI will not be resolved until Obama has secured the nomination.

[ Parent ]

Wow - the party that (5.00 / 1) (#210)
by Anne on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:19:47 PM EST

feigns leadership (see: Dean, Howard and Brazile, Donna) - and even does that poorly - is engineering the nomination of the candidate who deigns to grace us with his candidacy.

Sorry, but this is not MY Democratic Party.

Time for a harder line from Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#233)
by dwmorris on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:28:54 PM EST

She needs to make an unequivical statement that:
(1) she is staying in the race until one candidate secures 2209 delegates
(2) if it goes to the convention that's fine with her.

Under this scenario, the MI/FL issue will take care of itself in due course.

BTD, you know that won't work (5.00 / 1) (#259)
by daryl herbert on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:37:34 PM EST

If FL/MI are seated now, it will be enough of a boost to HRC that the race won't be "over"

It will be back on, which is exactly what he wants to avoid.

: god forbid (none / 0) (#266)
by Capt Howdy on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:40:09 PM EST

he should have a race on his hands.
that would never do.

[ Parent ]

A couple of points... (5.00 / 1) (#270)
by OrangeFur on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:42:19 PM EST

First of all, it may be too late to assuage any anger in FL and MI. Letting them count only when they don't matter is the same as not letting them count at all.

Second, the argument that you can punish the people for the actions of their elected officials is nonsense. I don't care if it was the Dems or Reps who did it. The people could vote to abolish the First Amendment (and often do, in fact) but it wouldn't have any effect.

Voting is a right. It cannot be taken away for any reason. I'm frankly astonished that the party that lost Florida in 2000 would ever argue anything differently.

: do we deserve to win? (none / 0) (#273)
by Capt Howdy on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:44:28 PM EST

it a fair question.

[ Parent ]

Here is a fair proposal to Obama (3.00 / 2) (#22)
by BigB on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:37:26 PM EST

a) Agree to a revote in FL and MI.

b) Agree that the person who leads the popular vote after the revote should be the nominee.

If Obama agrees to that then he has a way to demonstrate that he is a stronger nominee than Hillary. By winning FL and MI in a fair contest.
He probabl will have more funds to spend in both states and will still have the MSM in the tank for him.

Will he agree?

He could seat both FL and MI (5.00 / 1) (#51)
by DA in LA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:45:38 PM EST

now, as they voted and still lead by 100 delegates. A revote would only increase that total.

[ Parent ]

Can't pull off a revote (none / 0) (#129)
by ruffian on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:59:35 PM EST

before June 6. That is the deadline according to the Roooz.

Another ship that has long since sailed.

[ Parent ]

: They can change the rules (none / 0) (#187)
by BigB on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:14:09 PM EST

Nothing sacrosanct about these deadlines.

[ Parent ]

already done (1.44 / 9) (#2)
by Leftcoastliberal on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:28:22 PM EST

You're implying that the Obama campaign didn't want to seat MI and Fl, that's another smear. They offered, generously in my opinion, to seat them with half the delegates supporting each candidate (which might not be entirely fair, but isn't totally arbitrary: it about mirrors the equal popularity of the candidates nationally in the Gallup Polls). Trying to make it seem like Obama's hatin' on FLorida and Michigan is another dirty smear. Don't you people ever rest?

Why are you here? (5.00 / 4) (#3)
by Kathy on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:29:17 PM EST

What are you accomplishing with this? Why are you goading? Why are you being petty? Who does this help?

[ Parent ]

: Well..you would not understand why (none / 0) (#249)
by Stellaaa on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:33:51 PM EST

they come here. You see there is injustice to fight in the world. There is corruption. There is peace to make. But, alas, these folks only fight us, online. When did they create or make any change? Just like their leader, it's all about new age liberation theology--cause as we know, they even threw the old one under the bus, you know the ones that have the programs in the community.

[ Parent ]

Aren't you running out of salt to rub in? (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by andgarden on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:29:28 PM EST

[ Parent ]

It's well known (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by AnninCA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:31:36 PM EST

exactly what went on.

But I do agree, it won't matter.

Because Florida Dems already know exactly what went down, and so does Mich.

He doesn't need them. Remember?

[ Parent ]

Do you really think we're that stupid? (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by dianem on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:32:35 PM EST

Or are you a Republican who is trolling for votes for McCain? I can't think of another option. Heck, why not just skip the rest of the primaries and count half of the votes for Obama and half for Clinton. It's not like actual votes matter or anything, as long as Obama wins. Right?

[ Parent ]

It's not implied. It's a FACT. (none / 0) (#12)
by rooge04 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:32:21 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Aw, don't worry everyone (none / 0) (#55)
by txpolitico67 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:46:19 PM EST

Guam, American Somoa and Idaho will carry Barack to victory. WHO cares what those pesky Floridians, Michigonians, Ohioans and Pennsylvanians think anyway?

[ Parent ]

Can you imagine... (5.00 / 1) (#177)
by Alec82 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:12:43 PM EST

...what would happen to Senator Clinton's GE campaign if all of those pesky Floridians who voted for Obama, the Michiganders who voted uncommitted, the Ohioans and Pennsylvanians who supported him, said, screw it, we are so upset by the results, the audacity and negativity of the campaign, that we'll a) write in Obama, b) vote McCain or c) sit it out. Then posters here would almost certainly accuse Senator Obama's supporters of promoting a cult of personality, selfishness, not caring about the country, etc.

Suddenly, nearly half of the voters in all of those states wouldn't matter...except they would, in a big way.

Get a grip.

[ Parent ]

: Touché, except - (none / 0) (#279)
by liminal on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:01:54 PM EST

- the threat of just that has been an important tactic he has deployed again and again. He alleged that early in the contest himself; his wife implied virtually the same thing not with respect to his supporters but with respect to her own voice and voice, and for perhaps a month and a half, Obama's major surrogates, announced and unannounced, have done just the same thing.
These comments, complaints, and hurt feelings are the Obama campaign's chickens. They are coming home to roost.
I don't intend to vote for McCain; even though Obama has zero chance in hell of carrying my state come November (and could very well, IMO, cement it as a solidly red state in presidential politics for a generation. I could be wrong. He could figure out how to talk to the working class between now and November, but he hasn't done so yet.), I'll vote for him. I bet I'll work for him.
But I'm not forgiving him; nor am I forgiving his disingenuous and divisive supporters who have dismissed people like me in every way they can. I won't give