2209 is the Delegate Number, Not 2025

You'll be hearing this a lot in coming days. The true delegate number and the one Barack Obama must surpass is 2209, not 2025. Litigator Mom over at The Confluence explains, beginning with the correct calculation:

50% + 1 of all the delegates, pledged and SDs, alloted to the 50 states, Guam and Puerto Rico.

Not 48 states, but 50 states. She explains: [More...]

The DNC and the talking heads all say that “MI and FLA will be seated in some fashion.” That’s doublespeak for “MI and FLA will be seated in a manner which makes permanent the disenfranchisement of MI and FLA voters.” If, for example, the DNC awards Obama the nomination at 2025 delegates, then the MI and FLA delegates will have been rendered meaningless, whether they are “seated” before or after the DNC hands the trophy to Obama. You can’t say you’re seating MI and FLA, and then permit Obama to claim victory based on a magic number that doesn’t count MI and FLA’s delegates.

You can't expect an air of legitimacy to surround a nominee when 2.3 million voters are excluded from making the determination. These delegates not only must be seated, they must be seated when their votes count in determining the nominee. Seating them after that, so they have a chance to rah-rah for the candidate they had no say in selecting, won't cut it. And they certainly won't be satisfied with going to Denver just to weigh in on the party platform.

One person, one vote. 2.3 million votes have yet to be calculated in either the popular vote totals, the pledged delegate totals or the total number of delegates required to win the nomination.

Anyone have a button? "2209 or fight!"

Comments now closed.

< Why Did Obama Do Worse in N.C. Than Virginia? | Seating FL And MI Is About November >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I Can Live With That 2209 (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 06:54:15 PM EST

    Better give BTD a hat tip here too. (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by oculus on Wed May 07, 2008 at 06:57:02 PM EST

    yeah, I heard him ask that question and ... (5.00 / 3) (#60)
    by alexei on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:48:08 PM EST
    his excellent follow-ups.  He was a better "reporter" than the so-called professional media.

    Its all his fault Hillary is now (5.00 / 3) (#66)
    by oculus on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:49:15 PM EST
    being accused of moving those infamous goal posts.

    IABTDF! (5.00 / 4) (#94)
    by madamab on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:59:07 PM EST
    (It's All BTD's Fault!)



    LOL - putting the goalposts where they should be (5.00 / 2) (#185)
    by Ellie on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:31:11 PM EST
    Maybe I'm just mean about this teensy recalibration, but 2209 or until Donna Brazille's head explodes, whichever happens first, is the ideal metric (speaking only for me.)

    Keep the (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by OldCoastie on Wed May 07, 2008 at 06:58:14 PM EST
    nomination number at 2209, then seat FL and MI on the 2nd round of votes with full privileges.

    seems fair to me.

    2209 or it goes to the convention! (5.00 / 4) (#19)
    by dwmorris on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:15:32 PM EST
    There's no mechanism that can compel Hillary to withdraw from the race.  Bullying by the Obama camp, DNC, MSM (Obama/media complex), SDs, and/or party "elders" will only be effective if her base abandons her.  Don't let the Obama campaign define the terms of victory.

    I think (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by IzikLA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:45:06 PM EST
    The Clinton campaign needs to print up t-shirts pronto with a very simple statement:



    That would be easy to do... (none / 0) (#73)
    by kredwyn on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:50:34 PM EST
    over at cafepress. Bumper stickers too...

    Facts (none / 0) (#74)
    by joharmon86 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:50:42 PM EST
    Hillary only picked this new number when it was convenient. Same goes with Michigan and Florida. She was fine with not counting Michigan and Florida until it was convenient politically to talk about disenfranchisement. These are the facts.

    Truth (5.00 / 4) (#89)
    by Step Beyond on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:57:19 PM EST
    And which is worse, to be on the right side because it benefits you or to be on the wrong side because it benefits you?

    But this shouldn't be about Obama or Clinton or even their positions. This should be about the fact that no rule, no judgment, no ruling ought to be important than the right of people to vote and have those votes count.

    As soon as the DNC RBC decided that voters didn't matter they crossed a line. A line that should never be crossed.


    Fact (none / 0) (#99)
    by CanadianDem on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:03:00 PM EST
    Howard Wolfson, January 26:
    [WOLFSON MEMO] This remains a delegate fight, with 1,681 delegates at stake on February 5th, and 2,025 needed to secure the nomination -- and we are ahead in that fight.

    Howard Wolfson, February 12:
    "We don't think either candidate will be able to get 2,025 delegates without the superdelegates," Wolfson said during Monday's briefing, a prediction that may come down to whether Clinton can stem Obama's February momentum by taking the majority of Texas's and Ohio's 389 delegates on March 4 (Vermont and Rhode Island also hold contests that day).

    Howard Wolfson, February 13:
    "Superdelegates are supposed to vote their conscience. ... That's essentially what my friend David Axelrod said on the Today show. ... No one is going to win the nomination without them. Our goal is to get to 2025 delegates. " - Howard Wolfson


    So what? (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by dwmorris on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:18:37 PM EST
    Obama said he wouldn't run for President in 2008.  Perhaps he should withdraw immediately.

    The "magic number" has always been 2209, and the DNC as well as the Clinton and Obama camps mess with it at their peril.

    It is a profoundly stupid strategy to punish the voters of MI and FL for the misdeeds of politicians.


    Especially (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by madamab on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:24:15 PM EST
    since they were, for the most part, Republican politicians!

    2209 or Bust! (none / 0) (#196)
    by Ellie on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:34:17 PM EST
    I'd buy a sports bra with that in a heartbeat!

    Personally, I believe (5.00 / 3) (#63)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:48:23 PM EST
    that Hillary's steadfast willingness to continue fighting for the democratic nomination to be thorough and honest, speaks far more to her presidential credentials than Obama's holding on to his right to legitimately steal the nomination and just trust the democrats of FL and MI to come back to the party because they have no other place to go in November speaks to his.

    Remember, every single time the media or the Obama camp accuses Hillary of something negative, it is a distraction tactic intended to make it much more difficult to pin the truth on them. The only campaign trying to steal this nomination is the one that is refusing to disrupt their numbers with FL and MI.


    2209 or fight...I like that...the good fight (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by lily15 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:20:59 PM EST

    The 2025 thing (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by reynwrap582 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:29:43 PM EST
    Is nonsense.  While we're making up numbers, why don't we just say 1845 is the magic number so we can all go home?

    50% +1 of the allotted votes to me makes the number 2209 regardless of whether Florida and Michigan are seated. FL and MI still have delegates allotted to them, they're just presently not seated, but I don't see why they would not count in the final number.

    At this point, the only way I would consider voting for Obama and supporting the DNC in the future (which I have in the past, since I was 18) is if 2209 is the number, FL and MI get at least half votes for their delegates, the uncommitted MI delegates are not automatically allotted to Obama, and he either reaches the 2209 by himself or at the convention.  If that doesn't happen, the DNC can count me out for the next 50 years (I'm 25 now, I figure I can make it to 75)...

    Let the election play out and include ALL states (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by ChuckieTomato on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:35:05 PM EST
    The supers don't actually vote until the convention

    And Mark Penn should be in the food stamp line (5.00 / 5) (#41)
    by ChuckieTomato on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:37:53 PM EST
    He should never be hired to run another campaign

    You're only getting Obamamemos (5.00 / 4) (#45)
    by Cream City on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:39:33 PM EST
    I bet, as you don't note super-delegates declaring for Clinton.  Those happen every day, too.  They just don't get the same media play.

    Are you looking at the sites with daily updates of all of the data, super-delegates and pledged delegate counts? (Those change in between primaries, too, because of recaucusing in some states and add-on delegates, another kind hardly talked about, in other states, etc.)  Doing so is my dose of reality to deal with one-sided campaign and media spin -- and see just how difficult this will be for either candidate.

    Do you want to win the GE or not? (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Davidson on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:41:17 PM EST
    That's what at stake here.

    Winning the GE (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by pie on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:27:25 PM EST
    should be the most important thing.

    But it's not to the newly impressed.


    If (none / 0) (#223)
    by sas on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:47:40 PM EST
    winning the GE means electing Obama, my answer is no.

    No, actually, she doesn't (5.00 / 6) (#58)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:47:17 PM EST
    There were plenty of lies told about her (and Bill), but there's no actual "baggage" there.  Rezko and Wright and Ayers are people Obama actually hung with extensively, knowing full well who they were and what they were doing, and has never had a good explanation for it.

    and why did he lie? (5.00 / 1) (#229)
    by boredmpa on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:51:14 PM EST
    Or twist the truth about rezko and ayers and wright?

    He said in the debate that he lived in his neighborhood, clearly implying "he's just a guy that i know from the neighborhood."

    "This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who's a professor of English in Chicago who I know and who I have not received some official endorsement from. He's not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis."

    And why the flip-flops on wright and what he knew?

    And yet clinton is viewed as the liar by both the press and the voters. it's an insane double standard.


    Huh? (1.00 / 2) (#247)
    by Deadalus on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:05:53 PM EST
    How did he twist the truth about Ayers?

    How does that prove that?


    Pardons... (1.00 / 2) (#145)
    by Alec82 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:20:05 PM EST
    ...Marc Rich, President Clinton's post-presidency financial resources, a meme that she will do anything to win. In fact, the pardons, the campaign donations in her senate campaign, lingering questions about corruption, Senator Obama has not exploited those.  He could have, but he hasn't.  And that isn't equivalent to baseless charges from the 90s.  That's all new.

     Her populist meme will not hold up under GOP scrutiny, either.  You believe that Senator Obama's campaign has been vicious? Ha!  He has committed himself to being perceived, at least, as a different kind of politician.  What's the latest example of negative campaigning? The gas tax gimmick ad? That's just true.



    Oh, brother. (5.00 / 2) (#163)
    by pie on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:25:59 PM EST
    Get a clue.  She has her history.  The voters of NYS love her.

    He has nothing that compares.


    Uhhh... (2.00 / 1) (#219)
    by Alec82 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:44:03 PM EST
    ...the voters of NY may love her.  I like her, and I was planning on voting for her based, ironically enough, on electability concerns (although admittedly I wavered, because I liked Edwards as well, and he seemed safer).  My major concern was always the Iraq vote.  

     But even under the most ideal conditions, something like sixty percent of the population believes she is a congential liar (I think they all are, the truly truthful politician is a rare, possibly extinct breed).  The general election was always going to be close.  


    Surely.... (3.00 / 1) (#271)
    by Alec82 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:30:26 PM EST
    ...it was flip flopper, and hence untrustworthy, and hence a "liar" of sorts, that killed Kerry?

     "I was for the war before I was against it," etc.  All problems Senator Clinton would face, too.


    Get off the Ayers thing (1.00 / 2) (#154)
    by Deadalus on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:23:30 PM EST
    He lives in the hood.  He's a professor here.  Everyone knows him.  Mayor Daley has said as much.

    You look pathetic.


    You're the pathetic one (5.00 / 2) (#190)
    by RalphB on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:33:01 PM EST
    with your cute little talking points.  He lives in the hood.  Crap.

    Nice come-back. (1.00 / 1) (#217)
    by Deadalus on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:43:52 PM EST
    Seriously, can you make anything of the Ayers connection?  Really?

    He's a prominent figure in Hyde Park--a small academic community.  

    Academics have associations with all sorts of people; hell, the chair of the American Studies department at Brown was a former leader of the YCL who was imprisoned for obstructing the draft.  It's just silly to be like OHHHHHH, he knows a 60's radical!!!!!

    Especially when your husband pardoned two of them.

    Smacks of hypocrisy.  Not talking points, just truth.


    How's this (5.00 / 1) (#228)
    by Kathy on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:51:08 PM EST
    You either can't get your talking points right, or you are purposefully lying.  Clinton did not pardon two members of the Weather Underground.  Even if he did, they certainly paid a price for their terrorist acts against America, and they're not pontificating about how they should have bombed even more people from their sheltered ivory towers.

    Correct. (5.00 / 1) (#263)
    by AX10 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:21:40 PM EST
    There is nothing honorable or decent about Bill Ayers.  That thug has made it clear that he wishes he had done more terrorism against America.

    Wow.... (1.00 / 1) (#245)
    by Deadalus on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:05:17 PM EST
    "Clinton did not pardon . . ."  "Even if he did."

    He did.  Here's the article:  http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D06EED7133CF931A15752C0A9679C8B63

    There you go.  

    Also, if you want to be quibbling over "facts", Ayers never pontificated about how he should have bombed more people.

    That's just silly.  First, the Weather Underground made a point not to kill people when they bombed.  It was part of their pacificst disruption scheme.  Second, he merely said "I wish we had done more."  He did not say "I wish I had bombed more."  Bombing was not the only form of protest he engaged in....you are willfully misrepresenting the facts.

    Get a grip.


    you said two members (5.00 / 1) (#255)
    by Kathy on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:08:52 PM EST
    were pardoned.  That's only one.  Where is the other one?

    And how much time did Ayers spend behind bars for his crimes?


    Oh how I love a good argument (1.00 / 1) (#256)
    by Deadalus on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:10:12 PM EST
    Here's the other one....

    you would think you'd educate yourself before coming out on the issue wrong...twice.


    And you totally took the bait.  


    **Chirp** (1.00 / 1) (#261)
    by Deadalus on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:16:26 PM EST
    that's the sound of crickets chirping, Kathy.  Hear it?  It's pretty.

    ha! (1.00 / 1) (#269)
    by Alec82 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:27:39 PM EST
    Just love it:

     "...but now her campaign had--and it was signalling it would keep doing so, as part of an effort to tie Obama to a "terrorist." The ploy was a clear one. In this instance, you don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows."

     That writer deserves a raise.


    Yes, yes it is.... (none / 0) (#258)
    by Deadalus on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:11:48 PM EST
    It looks stupid to harp on the actions of a neighbor of Barack Obama's that occurred when the nominee was 8 years old.  It looks really immature and hasn't gotten traction.  It's reminiscent of the whispering campaign about Bill's organizing of anti-war rallies in the 92 campaign or his connection to Communism in Russia because he visited the USSR.  It's nothing new, and it will always be done....

    Most stunning... (none / 0) (#265)
    by Alec82 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:22:22 PM EST
    ...is that you appear to concede the legitimacy of the "debate."

     Seriously, what was your response going to be to anti-Clinton non-issues?  "We've already proven we're battle tested"?  If that was true the campaign would have been a no-brainer and she would have killed camp Obama.  

     Seriously, think about it.  Why would a candidate with as much name recognition, funding and early support be undermined by a relative newcomer if she was unbeatable in the GE?  


    and the triumph of style over substance (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by LHinSeattle on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:48:10 PM EST
    to so many otherwise sensible voters....

    Just give 'em a while. They'll find out about early Nov.  Or even if Sen. Style & Hope wins, he'll be pandering --- errr, playing bipartisan with those nice Repubs and returning to the foreign policy of Reagan and Bush I.

    The number is not 2209, but rather 2025 plus (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by barryluda on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:48:20 PM EST
    It's certainly more than 2025, but may well be less than 2209.  The "plus" would be however many delegates from MI and FL are agreed to be seated by all of the players (the Clinton and Obama campaigns, FL and MI, and the DNC).

    For example -- and my personal favorite resolution -- they might strip both states of their SDs but count all of the elected delegates just as they were voted (maybe with MI undecided going to Obama).

    I do agree with J that:

    You can't expect an air of legitimacy to surround a nominee when 2.3 million voters are excluded from making the determination.

    Consequently, neither candidate can claim victory until the FL / MI issue is resolved (unless one of them secures at least 2209 delegates).  So, maybe my disagreement turns out to just be semantics.

    Has anyone seen a YouTube (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Josey on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:49:25 PM EST
    of Donna Brazile's meltdown last night??
    She was on Nightline and they played a short segment, but can't find anything at ABC.
    Very telling.

    Transcripts were posted (5.00 / 1) (#243)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:03:02 PM EST
    on a couple of sites last night. You should be able to Google it.

    The evidence is that it's only a couple (5.00 / 3) (#71)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:50:22 PM EST
    here and there who are declaring for Obama.  The rest are still holding back.

    Why do you suppose that is, hmmmmm?  If they thought he had it locked up and were comfortable with that, they'd be trampling each other in the rush to get on board.

    If I were an Obama supporter, I'd be more than a little worried about that.

    And I thought the Left (5.00 / 8) (#76)
    by ahazydelirium on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:51:32 PM EST
    would bravely and nobly defend Hillary from a sexist media. But that didn't happen either.

    Certainly enough betrayal to go around.

    So tired of the same old tired mantra. (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by alexei on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:52:22 PM EST
    Clinton never thought that MI and FL would not be counted in determining the nominee.  Like she said last night, "it is weird" to have only 48 states determine the Democratic nominee.

    The Votes Don't Represent Reality (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by mcdtracy on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:53:17 PM EST
    The people of Florida and Michigan we told that their Primaries would not count. Using the results is suspect as anything close to a democratic process, IMHO.

    I am curious what the current polling in these states reflects for Obama and Clinton. I haven't seen an analysis of the change in pledged delegate counts if polling data is applied to the delegates (using either a full or 1/2 delegate measure and an averaged poll result).

    Has anyone run that analysis? Just curious.

    I think the public perception is that Obama has won the nomination at this point. I think that perception will be further enforced with the remaining primaries. Reversing that perception will only serve to increase Clinton's negatives for the General Election.

    So, many here state repeatedly that Obama can't beat McCain. I don't think the polls bear that out. I think Obama will destroy John McCain on the major issues: the "War", the economy, and Healthcare.

    Yes, there will be a racial backlash and attacks on religious issues but standing behind the man at this point is good for the Party. It's a historic achievement for this man to have this opportunity.

    Not a strong argument (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:15:51 PM EST
    It's as valid a vote tally as anything you can get from a caucus state where attendance is limited to people who can physically and emotionally handle that process.

    That's ridiculous (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by Manuel on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:16:27 PM EST
    The election in Florida is far more valid than any caucus.

    Can Obama win?  Perhaps but it is crazy to pretend he isn't vulnerable.  On the war, if the 3Am ad resonated with Democratic primary voters, don't you think it will resonate with the electorate on the GE.  On health care, the Harry and Louise mailers will come back to bite him.  On the economy, taxes will be an issue.  Don't kid yourself, this won't be a cake walk.


    Sorry, I wasn't clear enough (none / 0) (#241)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:01:00 PM EST
    anyone trying to make the argument these state votes couldn't be considered valid because people stayed home thinking it was a wasted effort to vote in an election where they wouldn't be counted was not giving any better an argument than someone who says caucus results shouldn't count because so many people won't or can't go to them.

    I didn't state it well the first time...maybe not any better this time, but your criticism doesn't match my intended comment.


    The (none / 0) (#210)
    by sas on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:39:34 PM EST
    people of Mich and Florida voted on the basis that an agreement would be worked out.  That is what their party told them.

    Already told the DNC (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by LHinSeattle on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:53:44 PM EST
    just exactly why I was stopping my contributions.

    First, she didn't (5.00 / 5) (#86)
    by litigatormom on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:55:22 PM EST
    agree to the punishment of MI and FLA. She agreed not to campaign or run ads in MI and FLA. That's it. That's all any of the candidates agreed to do.

    Second, it's the election, not the ROOLz, that I'm focused on.  I don't give a frak about the ROOLz.  I want the White House.  I want MI and FLA to go Democratic.  As things stand now, FLA definitely will not go blue, and MI is problematic.

    If Obama can get 2209 delegates, then he gets the right to be the nominee, regardless of my view Clinton would be a better president or a better adversary against McCain.  2209 delegates. Period.

    Living in Florida, (5.00 / 4) (#87)
    by Lena on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:55:33 PM EST
    (home of the disenfranchised!) I have to say at this point that the Democratic party (and Obama) have already lost me. Whether the delegates are counted or not, it is already crystal clear that:

    1. Obama feels he has no chance here in the general election, and therefore feels like it's okay to kill the Democratic party in Florida (and Michigan?): thanks for all that party-building, Obama!
    2. The Democratic party could care less about enfranchising Florida Democrats; more party-building! and
    3. the systemic breakdown of the Democratic party, as evidenced by its spinelessness on every subject conceivable since they won back Congress in 06, is on full display now.

    The only question for me is whether the voters that the party has picked up will be enough to offset the voters that they've lost through their bungling. (my spouse is dropping the party too, but his reason is their spinelessness on the judiciary, FISA, torture, etc. etc.).

    Florida was gamed by the Republicans... (none / 0) (#226)
    by mcdtracy on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:48:42 PM EST
    Florida and Michigan were controlled by Republicans that created this issue. Isn't that how this happened? You live there... how did the primary get moved?

    I'm Independent.... (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by AnninCA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:03:06 PM EST
    so it's not my problem.  I bailed when Dean was pushing to get her out of the race right before PA.

    2290 should have been the number all along, since the DNC refused to count MI and FL.  The job of Dean and Brazile is to educated voters, not use their position to back their candidate.

    Until the DNC clears up these obvious issues, the Democratic Party is a sham.  

    At least she was on the ballot in Michigan (5.00 / 3) (#106)
    by honora on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:05:35 PM EST
    Typical Obama spin, we can't count Michigan because it would be unfair to Obama because he made a huge tactical campaign error, but magnify Clinton errors. I think Clinton's biggest and fatal error was her first campaign manager.  I am sure that she did her best, but she left Clinton with no money to fight the Potomac primaries or Wisconsin.  I will give your that, but Obama's decision to go racist-bomb in SC is a much more grave error.  I will impact  US race-relations for the rest of my life. Yes, I am one of those old Clinton supporters, and damn proud of it.

    No kidding (5.00 / 3) (#153)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:23:16 PM EST
    for all we've seen from the Obama camp during this process, I feel completely confident that if the shoe was on the other foot, Obama would make Hillary deal with her own regret for having taken herself off the ballot.

    Those delegates that would go to the "uncommitted" count should be treated the same as those that would have been given to any candidate who dropped out of the race.


    Simply nuts (3.00 / 2) (#162)
    by Defeat McCain on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:25:52 PM EST
    Listen to yourself. You are blaming the black guy (actually bi-racial) for stirring racial tensions. You say you are old. Did you live in this country? Do you have any appreciation whatsoever of the legacy of racism in this country? What you are saying is the most baffling crypto-racism of all time. Ask Jeralyn if blacks stir up racism in order to get breaks in sentencing or in prosecutorial discretion. I bet she laughs in your face. Every serious commentator agrees that the racial tension in this race was not engendered by Obama.

    Historian Sean Wilentz (5.00 / 0) (#206)
    by RalphB on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:38:47 PM EST
    doesn't agree with you.  The Obama campaign started race baiting right after the NH primary and never really stopped.  He did it to shore up his AA support and get the guilty white liberals on board.  Shame they were so gullible that it worked.

    I am as old as Obama. (5.00 / 0) (#248)
    by honora on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:05:54 PM EST
    If you are a woman who supports Clinton, that makes you old.  If you are Caroline Kennedy listening to whom your children want you to vote for, then you are hip.  I know that our country can be racist, sexist, anti-semitic, homophobic and anti-immigrant, but none of that changes the fact that Obama played the race card right after the NH primary.  I watched it all start with his co-chair's attack on Hillary's commitment to the victims of Katrina.  Jesse Jackson Jr. announced on CNN that they were going to 'study' Clinton's showing of emotion in the NH diner.

    Then why was it Obama (none / 0) (#239)
    by ding7777 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:00:49 PM EST
    who, when specifically asked about his Press Secretary passing out 4 pages of alledged rascist comments by the Clintons, apologized for the race baiting (see Nevada debate for details)

    When it comes down to it... (none / 0) (#160)
    by Alec82 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:25:09 PM EST
    ...this is a political party's primary.  It was not a tactical error, it was good strategy.  The low turnout in MI is indicative of an invalid vote.

    See how good the strategy is when Michigan and (none / 0) (#237)
    by honora on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:00:07 PM EST
    Florida come back to bite him in the GE.  

    I doubt... (none / 0) (#253)
    by Alec82 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:08:30 PM EST
    ...they will.  MI will probably go Democratic because a) it has for the last four cycles and b) the economy is so bad that they even rejected mccain in the primary (after annointing him in 2000) because "native son" Mitt Romney promised that his business savvy would save the state from free trade woes while McCain said (quite rightly) that some jobs weren't coming back.  Oh yeah, and MI's AA population has proven decisive in every presidential election (I should know, I worked on them).  So MI, while it might still be "close," will go Dem.  

     And Florida was never going Democratic once they selected a senior citizen "centrist" white male war hero with favorables with Hispanic voters.  


    Every election is different. (none / 0) (#260)
    by pie on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:14:38 PM EST
    So MI, while it might still be "close," will go Dem.  

    Disenfranchise us and see what happens, grasshopper, especailly with an unqualified candidate.


    Name a Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by pie on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:08:37 PM EST
    personal attack.

    yes - let's talk about the Rules (5.00 / 2) (#126)
    by Josey on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:13:33 PM EST
    Candidates must not air TV ads or campaign in FL.
    Obama was the only candidate to violate those DNC rules!
    We can only imagine the headlines and Obamabot diaries if it had been Hillary!!

    Florida - A victim's point of view (5.00 / 3) (#142)
    by Ariel Floridian on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:19:39 PM EST
    Good Evening.  My name is Ariel and I live in Miami, Florida.  Although the name may be misleading, I'm a guy.  Specifically, Cuban-American.  And...to the shock of many (at least for those who know Miami) I have a left-leaning moderate and and a Democrat.  And...A Hillary Clinton supporter.  I haven't been outspoken in the cyber world, more so on a local effort and now will try this out.  

    I can just tell you all very honestly...from the perspective of an environment I spend over 9 hours a day (WORK) and includes Americans of Hispanic origin from over 12 countries in Latin America and Spain and the political mood in our office about 55% for Hillary, 35% for McCain and 10% for Obama.  Although we come from different political campaigns, we ALL agree that Florida and Michigan must count and therefore the number to become a nominee is 2209.  Nothing less will be accepted from Floridians, McCain will be number 2.  Most in Florida feel cheated first by our own government and the DNC but now with Obama as well.  His high-paid lawyers assured we would be disenfranchised.  That's unity?  No.  Barack Obama is the Manchurian Candidate.  Florida will never support him.

    And that's from a Miami Hispanic and Jewish perspective.  And after the comments from the CNN "DNC" spokesperson that WE the Hispanics are part of the old coalition...in what world does she live in?  Well after a failed political campaign career, I'm not surprised.

    Our people for the most part all across America support Hillary Clinton.  Hispanics will flock to McCain if Obama gets the Democratic Election.

    Count Florida Now!

    That's right. (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by The Realist on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:25:59 PM EST
    You would just love it if everyone just all came together after the race baiting game and the misogyny crap he, his campaign and his followers heaped upon this election.

    After Brazile flapped her mouth about not needing the white blue collar folks, we don't need her, Dean, or the DNC. So much for that 50 state thing, BTW.

    This could, potentially, be the best thing that ever happened to this country. Maybe, everyone will stop putting these idiots up for jobs that have no capacity of performing.

    Her plan to withdraw is much (5.00 / 3) (#168)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:27:00 PM EST
    better than his.

    Obama changes his mind depending on the prize for his answer, you know. In 2004 he clearly stated he didn't know how he would have voted had he been in the Senate at the time, and that he believed Bush was handling it very well at the time. He now says he said that because he was supporting Kerry's bid for president and needed to do the political pandering. Now he says he doesn't pander. Oh my.

    No, he ran for senate in 2003 (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by RalphB on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:30:26 PM EST
    this is just another one of his despicable lies.  But it got the fools on board, that's for sure.

    He opposed the War (none / 0) (#187)
    by Deadalus on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:31:28 PM EST
    During the debates for the Senate race in the Democratic primary for that seat.

    All Obama talk (none / 0) (#218)
    by sas on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:44:00 PM EST
    all the time.

    He was against the war....was that before or after he said he wouldn't know how he would have actually voted on it?


    He said he wouldn't have voted for it (none / 0) (#220)
    by Deadalus on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:45:24 PM EST
    on the Charlie Rose show in 2004.  Get over it.

    I wouldn't have opened Pandora's box ... (none / 0) (#257)
    by Ellie on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:10:30 PM EST
    ... but that's just me.

    I wouldn't have traipsed through Greek Mythology bad-mouthing her, either.

    Given what HRC was blamed for when she was First Lady, I wouldn't be suprised if the first First Lady's rep for unleashing Evil upon the world wasn't just the same kind of gratuitous smear campaign we're seeing now from the Obama fan club.


    Not really sure what this has to do (none / 0) (#268)
    by Deadalus on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:26:38 PM EST
    with the AUMF

    That makes two events Obama wasn't at (none / 0) (#272)
    by Ellie on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:33:29 PM EST
    He probably wouldn't have done a bunch of things at events he didn't attend.

    He should spend more time explaining his on the record words, actions and deeds than saying, Trust Me, (blah blah blah he would have behaved differently).

    He should spend more time explaining holes, lapses of judgement, and emptiness of accomplishment on HIS record than sliming Sen. Clinton's accomplishments.

    For instance, why does he keep funding the war he hypothetically would have opposed?


    Lanny Davis was great on CNN last night (5.00 / 2) (#188)
    by bridget on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:31:37 PM EST
    he explained that the new number is now 2209 and that MI and Fl votes needed to be counted now. Said that Hillary Clinton deserved those votes since she won in both states AND he said that Obama blocked revotes.

    The whole CNN panel (is there ever a single Clinton supporter in that lot? They were all Obama fans - Davis called in longdistance) ridiculed the MI and Fl vote count  thing immediately (esp. Gergen) and Brazile's blood pressure went up and she had the usual back and forth as expected w. Davis calling him "Baby" in her condescending manner, of course, and telling everyone Obama was not responsible and did nothing wrong. When Davis came back on air later he repeated that Obama was most def. at fault and that he had blocked the revote. Maybe CNN has a transcript available.  

    Host Anderson Cooper is no help. He sounded like a total nitwit. Guess he never heard that the MI and Fl issue was a huge problem for the Dems. The rest also acted as if it was a nonissue. Not worth their precious punditry time.

    No doubt CNN is deep in the Obama tank. I only watched for about 20 minutes and they got a real comfortable Obama club there and proud of it it seems.

    Lanny is a gentleman and mensch (none / 0) (#198)
    by Stellaaa on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:35:14 PM EST
    I want to send him a magnum of champagne.  I love that man.  He has worked his tail off for Hillary.  

    CNN is not in the Obama tank (none / 0) (#209)
    by Deadalus on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:39:24 PM EST
    That much has been clear.  But Lanny Davis is.  He's also the biggest spin-doctor out there, embarrassing not only himself but everyone associated with him.  Though, I must admit, his dedication is charming.  

    Obama doesn't use spin doctors ... check! (none / 0) (#264)
    by Ellie on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:22:04 PM EST
    Let's ask "Democratic Strategist" Jamal Simmons how working without spin doctors is transforming traditional eeeeevvvvvvviilll politics, as Obama's Unity schtick is supposed to do.

    Anyone else buying more Advil and Zantac (5.00 / 2) (#201)
    by Anne on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:36:27 PM EST
    than usual these days?  Honest to Christ, it isn't just that this entire primary season has been conducted with the media believing they were supposed to be in the driver's seat - declaring candidacies' dead, cutting candidates out of the picture by denying them coverage, going easy on some candidates and not letting up on the tiniest things with others.  I could write a book about how toxic the media have become, and it would include how utterly gobsmacked I am that after engineering the election of George Bush - twice - selling us a sick and dangerous war, and failing to hold the Bush administration accountable for the innumerable and unconscionable betrayals of country and democracy, they are still at it.  And it's working.

    And then we have people who just do not seem to understand the basic principles of democracy, the importance of the integrity of the vote, and some of the worst offenders are the people who are in charge of the process and who are making the rules - for my money, the DNC is worse than useless, it has crossed over to being dangerous.

    There are 50 states in this union.  50.  Not 48, not 48 plus 2 half-states.  50.  And those 50 states each have delegates.  Add them up, divide them in half and add 1: that's the number, and there is no magic about it.  

    Stop with the blather about Obama not being on the ballot and Clinton saying the votes wouldn't count.  Voting may be one of the most important things we do a citizens; as I tell my kids, it's the responsibility we have for the privilege of living in a free society, and I'm at a loss to explain people who never vote.

    The nomination belongs to no one at this point.  It's not in anyone's bag.  And it will be a mistake for any candidate to get it without according Florida and Michigan the delegates that go along with their seats at the convention.  As to how they get divvied up - it's time to deal with what is, to suck it up and - if some people have to - act like adults who care more about the principles and less about themselves.

    Stop gloating, please.  For some of us, this has been really painful, and we don't understand why that makes some of you so happy that you seem to live for coming here, twisting the knife and pouring salt in our wounds.  It's not winning us over to your side, not making us feel the unity or the hope, so have the decency to back off.

    Sorry for the long rant - must be time for another Zantac.

    Obama's an OK Guy (5.00 / 1) (#207)
    by AnninCA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:38:48 PM EST
    It's the DNC that I left.

    I am Independent now.  So I may vote for him or I may not.  Not sure.  

    Independents get to sit back and watch the show.

    Thread cleaned of (5.00 / 1) (#242)
    by Jeralyn on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:02:22 PM EST
    off-topic comments and chatterers. New posters need to read the comment rules.

    BTW - Obama only needs ... (4.50 / 6) (#28)
    by dwmorris on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:29:20 PM EST
    to win 50% of the remaining pledged and super delegates to get to 2210 -- WITH both the FL and MI delegations seated in accordance with the votes in January (assuming all uncommitted MI delegates to Obama - which seems fair).

    So the real question is -- what is the Obama camp afraid of?  They have every advantage imaginable (fund raising, media support, SD momentum, etc.), and they won't do the right thing.

    Unforgivable.  And cowardly.

    MI and FL (1.00 / 1) (#80)
    by joharmon86 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:53:42 PM EST
    What evidence do you have that suggests that Obama is unwilling to seat Michigan and Florida? NONE except Hillary's allegations. Barack wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan because he (like the other candidates in the race including Edwards) played by the rules.

    Here we go again (5.00 / 4) (#92)
    by janarchy on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:58:13 PM EST
    There was nothing in The Roolz that said the candidates had to take their names off the ballot in MI. It was a totally and utterly voluntary decision by those candidates to do so -- and it was Obama who convinced Edwards and several others to do it in order to focus on Iowa (by some leap of logic I still don't quite understand). Hillary and Kucinich left their names on.

    If you're going to throw 'facts' around, then how bout getting them right?


    Didn't remove himself from Florida ballot (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by Step Beyond on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:00:41 PM EST
    No because he chose to remove himself from the ballot. That wasn't per any rule. He didn't remove himself from the Florida ballot. He had 4 weeks during which time he could have tried to remove himself from the Florida ballot but didn't. My post on this earlier today.

    The evidence is self-evident (5.00 / 3) (#124)
    by dwmorris on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:10:31 PM EST
    So ... it's Hillary's fault for laying this bum rap on Obama?  Truly inspired spin -- but total BS.

    Obama wasn't on the ballot because he wanted to de-legitimize the outcome of a contest in which he was clearly going to get beat badly.  As the other "uniter-and-not-divider" once said ... "Mission Accomplished."


    well (5.00 / 2) (#177)
    by sas on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:28:54 PM EST
    his supporters blocked re-votes along with Republicans

    he doesn't sound eager to settle the issue...onbly make it go away


    And I'm sure Hillary would have done this same (2.00 / 1) (#179)
    by Deadalus on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:30:12 PM EST
    if the situation were reversed.

    The fact that he's ahead even with those bogus elections makes the issue moot.


    The Evidence is Not a Secret (5.00 / 5) (#183)
    by BackFromOhio on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:30:53 PM EST
    It's his refusal to accept either assigning FL delegates according to the vote and the MI delegates with those for Hillary to her & the balance to him OR any revote or any other proposal other than that the delegates in each state be assigned 50-50 which is so blatantly disrespectful of the voters' wishes, etc.

    If he doesn't think the primaries were "fair", why did he say no to a revote?  Because he knows Dean was afraid to do anything without his agreement.  Not that Dean's failure of leadership is Obama's responsibility, but he is taking full advantage of it.  

    I think during the Bush years, there has been such a perversion of constitutional democracy that we don't recognize what it is any more.


    Read our archives (5.00 / 1) (#238)
    by Jeralyn on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:00:20 PM EST
    we aren't here to repeat well established facts. Better yet, invest in a Lexis subscription and read the news.

    As BTD said, Clinton should go ahead, campaign (2.33 / 3) (#17)
    by jcsf on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:15:00 PM EST
    But do it, without resorting to these type of stunts.

    Given the amount of participation we've had in IN, OH, I can't see anyone begrudging Hilary to run a clean campaign, stay in the race, and run the campaign against McCain.  

    But Obama is going to be the nominee, barring meltdown.  By every conceivable metric, delegates, votes, states, etc.  

    She decides when to 'suspend' her campaign (always a good idea, in case Obama implodes), but be very clear what her purpose is.

    I'm sorry (5.00 / 4) (#52)
    by IzikLA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:43:27 PM EST
    What exactly are "these type of stunts"??  Counting 50 states instead of 48??  Including 2.3 million people that actually went to the polls and voted because they wanted their voice to be heard?

    I'm not sure I understand your argument at all.


    When did counting all the votes become a stunt? (5.00 / 4) (#53)
    by ahazydelirium on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:44:12 PM EST
    Who in the h3ll are you (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by RalphB on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:18:23 PM EST
    or Obama to give her a purpose.  You don't even know when you're being insulting, do you?  The egos are amazing.

    Her purpose is clear (3.00 / 0) (#27)
    by Manuel on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:26:31 PM EST
    Get as many votes and delegates as she can.
    Advocate for a fair resolution to FL and MI (which will have the effect of changing the required number but who cares).
    Give every state and PR a chance to vote.

    As BTD advocates, she should cool it on the negative campaigning (and so should Obama).  


    Clinton negative campaigning? (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by Davidson on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:40:37 PM EST
    How so?  BTW: legitimate points of criticism of someone else's policy is not a "negative" attack.  Clinton was obsessively focused on policy, solutions during her campaigning.  Obama, OTOH, was the one who just had to constantly inject a personal attack at just about every stop.

    I did not mean to imply (none / 0) (#192)
    by Manuel on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:33:36 PM EST
    that she has been overtly or excessively negative.  I mean stuff like "He has no solutions so he attacks mine".  While it is true, the harm to the golden boy outweighs the benefit to Hillary and damges her chances with the superdelegates.

    spin (none / 0) (#222)
    by sas on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:46:05 PM EST
    spin, spin

    What will you say when she wins the popular vote?

    That's the only metric that reflects the actual will of the people.


    I agree (none / 0) (#4)
    by AnninCA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 06:58:53 PM EST
    but I anticipate the DNC to ignore this and do it anyway.

    Seriously, they do not care about, obviously, about MI or FL or electability.

    Howard Disagrees with you (none / 0) (#5)
    by TruthMatters on Wed May 07, 2008 at 06:59:28 PM EST
    Howard Wolfson, January 26:
    [WOLFSON MEMO] This remains a delegate fight, with 1,681 delegates at stake on February 5th, and 2,025 needed to secure the nomination -- and we are ahead in that fight.

    Howard Wolfson, February 12:
    "We don't think either candidate will be able to get 2,025 delegates without the superdelegates," Wolfson said during Monday's briefing, a prediction that may come down to whether Clinton can stem Obama's February momentum by taking the majority of Texas's and Ohio's 389 delegates on March 4 (Vermont and Rhode Island also hold contests that day).

    Howard Wolfson, February 13:
    "Superdelegates are supposed to vote their conscience. ... That's essentially what my friend David Axelrod said on the Today show. ... No one is going to win the nomination without them. Our goal is to get to 2025 delegates. " - Howard Wolfson

    That was (5.00 / 6) (#7)
    by AnninCA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:04:16 PM EST
    before BTD talked to him.  LOL*

    Now, the number has changed.  :)


    Heh (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:06:44 PM EST
    Good job too! (none / 0) (#79)
    by alexei on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:53:26 PM EST
    As I said upthread, BTD was more like a real reporter than the so-called professionals.

    On talk radio today, (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by oculus on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:08:28 PM EST
    on of the "guys" played some clips from Clinton's speech last night.  Biggest guffaw was reserved for her determination to fight for inclusion of delegates from MI and FL.  Deemed desperation.

    stepped into a twighlight zone (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Lil on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:12:32 PM EST
    Refused to watch tv news, only listened to music, barely perusrd the blogs. I feel better and I got a lot done. I may be done with talk radio for good. feels weird. TL my only source for what's happening today.

    Let's see how desperate Obama (5.00 / 6) (#90)
    by litigatormom on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:57:32 PM EST
    looks when he can't figure out why FLA and MI go red.

    Seriously.  There is a principle here. The talking heads don't want to acknowledge it. It doesn't fit in with the Agreed Narrative that Clinton will do anything to win.

    The fact is, it's Obama who was willing to do anything to win. Including cutting off his nose (MI and FLA) to spite his face.


    Seems the talking heads and the DNC (none / 0) (#215)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:42:24 PM EST
    are so desperate to make sure Hillary does NOT get the nomination, they are willing to risk everything to get their way.

    yeah. It's a big yuk yuk yuk to disenfranchise (5.00 / 2) (#141)
    by derridog on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:19:25 PM EST
    2.5 million voters.  What a laff riot!

    Who the hell is BTD? (none / 0) (#225)
    by The Realist on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:48:11 PM EST
    i'm sorry. i must be daft, but who is BTD?

    Big Tent Democrat (none / 0) (#250)
    by Faust on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:06:40 PM EST
    aka Armando, one of the principal site contributors.

    Who cares? (5.00 / 4) (#16)
    by Davidson on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:14:46 PM EST
    We're talking about disenfranchisement and winning back the White House!

    Disenfranchisement (none / 0) (#98)
    by joharmon86 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:01:48 PM EST
    This is a primary process used so that the DNC can pick their nominee; it's not a federal, state, or local election. Therefore, you can't be "disenfranchised." There were several states that didn't get their say on the Republican side because McCain became the presumptive nominee. The states that didn't get to vote were not "disenfranchised." Puerto Rico doesn't even count in the general, and they aren't being "enfranchised" either.

    I'm sure that will be a really convincing (5.00 / 2) (#157)
    by derridog on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:24:14 PM EST
    argument that the citizenry of Florida and Michigan will take to heart in the general. No doubt they will see the error of their ways for having the temerity to vote at the WRONG TIME and rush wholeheartedly to vote for Obama, who wouldn't allow them to be seated or give them a chance to revote, in case he might lose.  

    Hindsight has value (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:06:57 PM EST
    Sometimes decisions to "punish" in advance of breaking a rule needs to be revisited when it is discovered the punishment is way outside of the measure of proportional response.

    When people think of a "delegation" they are not necessarily aware of the millions of people who that delegation represents.


    just incase it was obvious (none / 0) (#6)
    by TruthMatters on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:03:58 PM EST
    my point is, its hard for them to NOW say its 2209 when there are like 12 quotes alone with them saying tis 2025, who knows how many times they said it privately to supers.

    you can't say for months 2,025 and one morning wake up and say well we meant 2209


    It isn't a matter of what was said or not said (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Manuel on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:19:31 PM EST
    The number is 2025 if and only if FL and MI aren't seated.  On the other hand there are quite a few quotes from many sources saying FL and MI will be seated.  What are they going to do?  Elect the nominee and only then seat FL and MI?  That will not look good on TV.  So there will be some deal struck to seat FL and MI in some fashion and that deal will change the necessary number.  It may be 2209 or it may be some other number.  It doesn't really matter what the number is.

    Does anyone have the quote from Kos (none / 0) (#165)
    by derridog on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:26:08 PM EST
    saying that there was no question that the delegates from Fla and MI would be seated?

    Well, you also can't (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by mm on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:29:34 PM EST
    go around saying that you're going to "seat the delegates from FL and MI" and at the same time say that the number is 2025.  That's just a bunch of doubletalk to me.

    I just did it. 2209 (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by ineedalife on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:47:27 PM EST
    It was very easy. I am sure you can do it too. Come on, give it a try. The truth sets you free.

    2209. I did it again. It feels better every time.


    I'm still working on TeamO dumping Hope / Change (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by Ellie on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:10:07 PM EST
    A shift in the 2025 spin should be nothing.

    After Obama's abandonment his Unity, Hope Change platform to sling, smear and slur [insert every category] of bigotry, his numerous swerving on a dime (eg, voting three times for gax tax holidays) and denouncing Rev Wright, I expect that Obama can handle it.

    Which begs the question, if Obama can toss his spiritual mentor of 20 years because of bad press, why is he so darn attached to internecine DNC arcana preventing a revote and a full acknowledgement of the real "magic number" he must reach?

    Does Obama revere the DNC rulebook than his two decades' long relationship with spiritual mentor who inspired the title of Obama's book (Audacity of Hope)? Is this how he prioritizes his shifts in -- well, I'd call it processing reality, but that's speaking just for me.


    exactly (1.00 / 4) (#55)
    by Defeat McCain on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:45:25 PM EST
    Its just goofy. What we have here are the stages of grief. Denial, anger, bargaining, grief, acceptance.

    First, denial that Hillary would lose, now anger at Obama's flaws and faults, then bargaining over the terms of defeat. Grieve and then accept it folks. And then lets get to work electing the person who after Hillary most reflects your vision of what this country should be, and there should be no question that it is Barack Obama.


    Thanks (5.00 / 4) (#68)
    by ahazydelirium on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:50:07 PM EST
    for condescending to my level and pathologizing me. It's all so clear.

    sorry! (1.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Defeat McCain on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:00:02 PM EST
    Just the way I see it. I also find it funny that you guys are reeling off complaints about Obama in a right wing pleniplaint fashion. Wake up, folks.

    Obama is not getting my vote, never, nada, no. (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by alexei on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:54:29 PM EST
    Look forward to your report (none / 0) (#149)
    by Defeat McCain on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:22:04 PM EST
    on Operation Chaos. I am sure Rush appreciates your efforts.

    What vision? (5.00 / 2) (#173)
    by esmense on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:28:31 PM EST
    A vision that does not include working folk and continues a shameful 3 decades long failure to address the issues of economic decline and increasing lack of direct political representation for working class and middle class workers? Obama and his elite supporters believe they know the best interest of working class voters better than those working class voters themselves. But those liberal elites have only been pursuing their own economic interest  -- rather than listening to and respecting other perspectives. Now they think they see a chance to put together a winning coalition that won't require them to even pay lip service to "people with needs." Or, in other words, the people (a majority) who are ill served when the government serves first and only a narrow and powerful elite.  

    Well (none / 0) (#230)
    by sas on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:51:25 PM EST
    the person after Hillary who most reflects what my vision would be like would be John Edwards.

    So, OK, I'll work for him then.


    What are you doing here? (none / 0) (#233)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:56:10 PM EST

    You are correct (none / 0) (#8)
    by jcsf on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:05:47 PM EST
    Good sir!

    Sure you can (none / 0) (#216)
    by Nadai on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:42:54 PM EST
    I'm surprised a follower of the Change Candidate doesn't know that.

    She can't win (none / 0) (#10)
    by ChuckieTomato on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:07:15 PM EST
    This race is over. The media has already framed it as cheating or "stealing" the election if she wins with supers. Even her friends have turned on her now.

    DiFi publicly demands to see (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by oculus on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:09:11 PM EST
    Clinton's game plan.

    She has a gameplan and it's within the rules (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by ChuckieTomato on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:10:51 PM EST
    But the media and DNC won't allow it

    You know, (5.00 / 14) (#65)
    by litigatormom on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:48:42 PM EST
    it's not just about Clinton winnning.  I'd like that, of course.

    But there is another issue, one that is fundamental to the Democratic Party -- or at least ought to be:  is the Democratic nomination the product of a fair process that permitted Democrats in every state to have their voices heard?  As things stand now, Obama's "presumptive" nomination will not be.

    If Obama can win the nomination with 2209 without seating MI and FLA first, then and only then does "the math" make MI and FLA irrelevant.  But he can't lower the magic number by excluding MI and FLA. I think that's called giving yourself a discount.

    Although the DNC refuses to acknowledge it, they haven't done Obama any favors. To the contrary, they've handicapped Obama in the GE by continuing to enforce their cramped reading of The ROOLz (which didn't authorize complete disqualification of the MI and FLA delegations, by the way).  Howard Dean and Donna Brazile are kidding themselves if they think that FLA and MI Democrats are going to blame their state party officials, rather than the DNC and Obama himself, for their disenfranchisement.


    Go, (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by kmblue on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:07:05 PM EST
    litigator Mom!
    She speaks the truth!

    I agree (5.00 / 3) (#117)
    by AnninCA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:08:17 PM EST
    totally.  And until we have some reasonable discussion about how the system is weighted in such an unfair manner, then every future nomination process is going to be completely dreaded.

    This year was a lesson for Democrats.  Yes, it DOES matter.  When one collects delegates for ever 5 voters in one area and every 1000 voters in the same state in a different area....the system is nuts.

    Then we have to listen to how 100 delegates is the "will of the people" from our Democratic leader, Pelosi?

    Nobody is this stupid.  It was a power grab, and look who did the grabbing:  All Washington insiders.


    FL State Party Officials Had No Say (none / 0) (#221)
    by BackFromOhio on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:45:45 PM EST
    The Republican controlled FL legislature refused to change the date of the primaries and tied that legislation to important paper ballot provisions.  So why should the FL State Dems be punished for trying to protect the integrity of the voting process when their backs were up against a wall, i.e., they had no choice.  

    Stealing? (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:10:28 PM EST
    So, Obama is not stealing the nomination when he refuses to recognize the votes of all 50 states?

    Feh, (5.00 / 2) (#143)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:19:41 PM EST
    they are just trying to get her out before WV and KY.

    The good thing is that the media seems to have very little influence with the voters.


    Half? (none / 0) (#21)
    by decih on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:18:38 PM EST
    If Michigan's pledged delegates are 128, and Florida's delegates are 185, the total between the two is 313. 2024 + 313 is 2337, so I'm assuming you're applying a standard half-penalty to the states and then adding the full super delegate list from those states to get 2209?

    "54º40' or Fight" probably isn't the best reference to be playing off, considering the United States gave in on that one...

    Okay, I get it... (none / 0) (#34)
    by decih on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:33:18 PM EST
    Only add half the delegates + 1 because that's 50.1% of the state. Nothing about a 50% penalty.

    Nope (none / 0) (#35)
    by reynwrap582 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:33:29 PM EST
    Your math is assuming that the candidate would have to get 100% of the MI and FL vote to win.  If FL and MI were counted at half delegates, it'd half of half of 313...so... 2103?

    Darn... (none / 0) (#36)
    by reynwrap582 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:34:07 PM EST
    Beat me by 11 seconds!

    Lol sorry. (n/t) (none / 0) (#39)
    by decih on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:35:36 PM EST
    Yes. (none / 0) (#38)
    by decih on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:35:07 PM EST
    That makes sense, thanks.

    2209 is the number (none / 0) (#128)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:13:45 PM EST
    If they adjust it, it can't be done until after the determination for the delegations is made. But, if they decide a second vote at the convention will eliminate all punishments, then the real number remains 2209.  

    Because of the way this race has been run, it's best to keep 2209 as the number.


    You're (none / 0) (#42)
    by Emma on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:38:46 PM EST
    Doing the math wrong.  

    Penalties Should Apply to All or Not at All (none / 0) (#212)
    by BackFromOhio on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:41:00 PM EST
    There were 5 states that violated the parties rules regarding when their primaries could be held.  Only FL and MI were punished.  So either all should be punished in the same fashion, or none should be punished.  

    heh (none / 0) (#69)
    by Faust on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:50:11 PM EST
    The only two states left are SD and OR that she might have a problem with.

    She will lose them both. She will also lose Montana. She will win the others.

    Enemies Hillary has made? (none / 0) (#111)
    by pie on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:05:58 PM EST
    Like whom?

    So called "progressive" blogs (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by Manuel on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:27:42 PM EST
    for a start.  They lost their ability to be objective and lost a lot of my respect in the process.  Ditto for the liberal media.  I doubt I have to name names.

    The Clinton Campaign (none / 0) (#121)
    by pennypacker on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:09:49 PM EST
    repeatedly said 2029 was the number...now they are changing and that is supposed to be okay. Quote after quote said that was the number from the Clinton camp.

    I agree (none / 0) (#132)
    by AnninCA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:16:00 PM EST
    it was an inside hit job.

    I am sorry, but that is not what she said (none / 0) (#135)
    by debrazza on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:17:01 PM EST
    The current situation sucks because of the idiotic media expectations game, but there is no need to misrepresent what she said.  I watched the program too.

    Yep she said it (5.00 / 2) (#144)
    by Stellaaa on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:19:48 PM EST
    it's what she thinks and what the Obama campaign think.  She has not political filters, cannot weasel.  

    Brazile's partisanship (none / 0) (#150)
    by BackFromOhio on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:22:33 PM EST
    Since CNN got rid of Carville as a regular commentator because of pressure from the Obama campaign complaining Carville lacked impartiality, why can't we do the same vis a vis Brazile?  

    Because they like (none / 0) (#246)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:05:40 PM EST
    the anti-Clinton type.

    Because CNN supports Obama (none / 0) (#270)
    by bridget on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:28:58 PM EST
    in fact from what I have seen so far the whole pro Obama punditry panel lacked impartiality

    btw. had no idea they got rid of Carville as a regular commentator (I do remember kos et al bashing Carville for quite some time now and making a big deal of him being a Clinton supporter - obviously they are perfectly happy with Brazile, Olbermann, etc).

    did CNN get rid of Begala as well?


    your (none / 0) (#186)
    by sas on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:31:14 PM EST
    nominee, not our nominee

    I always figured there were Republicans here. (none / 0) (#189)
    by Deadalus on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:32:52 PM EST
    Guess we have some evidence now.

    Rush fans (none / 0) (#200)
    by Defeat McCain on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:36:03 PM EST
    This is Operation Chaos in action. You can tell from their rhetoric. They sound like Republicans--complaining about elitism, throwing charges of racism at the black guy, etc. Its kind of peculiar.

    Actually (none / 0) (#236)
    by sas on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:59:40 PM EST
    you should visit the Republican sites.

    They are salivating at the prospect of competing against Obama.


    If we're all just Republicans (none / 0) (#240)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:00:53 PM EST
    what are you doing here, then?

    Okay (none / 0) (#254)
    by Deadalus on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:08:43 PM EST
    Are you completely incompetent at understanding?

    I said, "I always suspect there were Republicans here."

    That doesn't mean ALL of the people here are Republicans.  


    Heh (none / 0) (#259)
    by cawaltz on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:11:57 PM EST
    If we were Repblicans we'd be swooning over Mr. Unity don't you know?

    He can't even unify the Democratic party from where I'm sitting.


    We? Pluralis Maiestatis!? (none / 0) (#273)
    by feet on earth on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:33:48 PM EST
    True, and the real job of the supers (none / 0) (#191)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:33:15 PM EST
    is to guarantee the democratic nominee is the person who stands the greatest chance of winning the position of president. The people don't always get it right in this process, but 95% of us have already voted. The supers get an additional 2 months of polls and conversations with their constituencies to get the best sense of how they should cast their votes.

    no (none / 0) (#199)
    by sas on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:35:14 PM EST
    she hasn't lost

    50% + 1 of all the delegates, pledged and SDs, alloted to the 50 states, Guam and Puerto Rico.

    Here's how I read this, from a Scalia-esque "strict constructionist" perspective:

    If zero delegates were allotted to Florida and Michigan, or all of their delegates were "un-allotted," then the magic number is 2025.

    If, on the other hand, delegates were allotted and then frozen/stripped, or otherwise prevented from voting, but not "un-allotted," the true number is 2029.

    Of course, maybe strict constructionism isn't the best way to read a document that should be, above all else, Democratic.

    How do we decide whether delegates were allotted in the first place, or if they were "un-allotted"?

    The dictionary definition isn't very helpful.  It just means "parceled out" or "assigned."

    That sounds like a task for the Rules Committee. (If you're familiar with the race, you probably know that Hillary has a lot of friends on that committee, to the point that she basically controls it.  The Obama camp is describing it as the "nuclear option" for Hillary to use the rules committee to her advantage.)

    not even a nickel (none / 0) (#203)
    by sas on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:37:13 PM EST
    The DNC is so in the tank for Obama...why would I give them even a penny

    They are disgraceful

    NC speech post-PA Debate (none / 0) (#227)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:50:51 PM EST
    "she was in her element" complete with hand gestures. "that's okay, she can twist the knife"

    "Senator Clinton is busy talking about me instead of getting to the issues."

    "She was overheard to say just the opposite once she went backstage."

    It is non-stop, but because he tells the crowds, and the MSM repeats it for him, that he doesn't do negative campaigning or personal attacks, people just take him at his word.

    The (none / 0) (#234)
    by sas on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:56:24 PM EST
    left can do what they want.  And the working class can do what they want.  And so can the Latinos, and the Catholics, and the women, and the seniors.....

    Hillary didn't agree or disagree (none / 0) (#235)
    by ding7777 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:56:28 PM EST
    She wasn't on DNC committee which punished MI and FL by 100%

    Another magic number (none / 0) (#249)
    by dwmorris on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:06:18 PM EST
    Hillary only needs to secure approximately 284 super delegates to force the DNC to resolve the MI/FL controversy (36%).

    This assumes:
    (1) the two candidates split the remaining pledged delegates, and
    (2) Clinton refuses to withdraw if Obama fails to secure a total of 2209 delegates.

    This would obviously require her to both minimize and compensate for defections.  Since she is currently at approximately 271, she is essentially already in the drivers seat if the campaign outperforms in the remaining primaries.

    The media is controlled by repug owners (none / 0) (#252)
    by karen for Clinton on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:07:42 PM EST
    The guys that speak for them get big pay hikes and fancy perks for backing the bogus dem candidate and spinning till he gets in.

    If OB had a shot in hell they would be shooting at him with everything they had.

    They only take shots at the real deal, the one who can actually win it.

    He can't so they shoo him in.

    There are only something like 10 media corps in the world and everybody is owned by one of them so they make the rules and the toadys follow.

    Little blogs that speak truth don't get many viewers but they sure make more sense.

    Notice how rich Huffington and Markos are?

    Notice they were republicans. Are they now just dems for a day or for pay?

    They'd sell their souls for moolah.

    my 2 cents.

    Does anybody believe at this point (none / 0) (#266)
    by nellre on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:23:39 PM EST
    Does anybody believe at this point that the dems will win in November?

    I started to type "we" but put dems in instead... because I really am embarrassed at how this party has been managed, and the crap they've pulled on HRC... so  I don't want to be a dem anymore.

    One person, one vote, NOT (none / 0) (#275)
    by BrucesReality on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:49:03 PM EST
    "One person, one vote"

    Sorry, but in a system where superdelegates can effectively decided who gets to be the nominee, regardless of who has more regular delegates or more of the popular vote, "one person, one vote" is very misleading.  The supers were put in place for precisely the opposite reason of "one person, one vote", they are there to override our votes just in case we don't get it right.

    "You can't expect an air of legitimacy to surround a nominee when 2.3 million voters are excluded from making the determination."

    And you have the same problem when you include MI in which Obama was not even on the ballot.  Also, because everyone knew that FL was not going to count, not all of the candidates campaigned in that state like they normally would have, thus FL delegates are not necessarily "legitimate" either.

    I like Clinton.  I like Obama.  I'll vote for whoever gets the nomination.  But I'm growing tired of this pity party for MI and FL.   Their primaries were not fair for any of the candidates and unless they can vote again, I don't know how you can fairly seat their delegates.  Maybe the Dems can learn from this mess and restructure the primary system so it is fair for all the states.

    I Still Don't Get The Significance (none / 0) (#276)
    by flashman on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:37:12 AM EST
    I don't think it matter what the "magic number" is.  At the end of the day, all the delegates and SD's will be counted and the candidate with the most wins.  The race will NOT be called on the magic number, no matter what it is.