home

Seating FL And MI Is About November

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:55:25 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg This!! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Barack Obama is almost certainly going to be the nominee. As I wrote to our friend Markos today (yes, he is still a good friend of Talk Left), it is in Barack Obama's and the Democratic Party's interest to seat the delegations. I assume Democrats in all races, including the Presidential race, want to compete in Florida and Michigan. Seating their delegation contributes greatly to that.

That's why I think attitudes like that exhibited by Matt Yglesias are totally misguided. If Obama loses the nomination, it won't be because Florida and Michigan are seated. It will take a huge meltdown for that to happen. On the other hand, seating Florida and Michigan could very well contribute to Democratic victories in Florida and Michigan, including at the top of the ticket.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

Comments now closed.

< 2209 is the Delegate Number, Not 2025 | Rezko: Defense Rests, No Witnesses Called >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Seating FL And MI Is About November | 250 comments (250 topical)
    I must say.. (5.00 / 5) (#2)
    by AX10 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:00:29 PM EST
    that Kos is no friend of mine.  Most of the left wing activists are not my friend.  I will not be voting for Obama.  I still like talkleft.com though!

    exactly! (5.00 / 4) (#13)
    by Josey on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:07:58 PM EST
    Kos supports the "unity" candidate and will continue spewing vitriol toward Hillary until Obama is crowned.


    [ Parent ]
    robert frost wrote about words. (4.85 / 7) (#48)
    by hellothere on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:28:25 PM EST
    once you send them marching off, you can't call them back. the damage done can't be undone. daily kos and others didn't have to become what it did. sure they could have supported obama, but it was never necessary to turn on the very people who had been the strongest and best support for years in favor of mean spirited frat types.

    [ Parent ]
    I'll never go back (5.00 / 5) (#111)
    by litigatormom on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:03:34 PM EST
    to the Blog That Must Not Be Named. I may vote for Obama in the fall, but I am done with Orange. Some things can't be forgotten or forgiven.

    [ Parent ]
    Kos and Josh are not lefties (5.00 / 4) (#19)
    by koshembos on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:11:38 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    What? (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by squeaky on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:37:45 PM EST
    Left wing activists? Do you think any of your left wing activists think much of Obama or Hillary. Both candidates are far right relatively speaking. No left wing activist would join a cult that worships Hillary or Obama. It is those to the right that worship their candidate without criticism. At the most those you speak of crunch the numbers regarding electability over McCain.

    [ Parent ]
    AX10...Yeah I Would Hardly Consider Kos (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:56:42 PM EST
    a friend...his vitriol has been vicious at times.

    [ Parent ]
    Leftwing activists (3.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Deadalus on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:02:13 PM EST
    aren't your friends?  As a group?  

    Seriously, how many leftwing activists are there?  Probably a lot....and you're prejudiced against them for no other reason than you believe they support the candidate you don't?  

    Weird.

    [ Parent ]

    No. (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by AX10 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:08:12 PM EST
    They have been attacking Hillary and her supporters from day one.
    That goes all the way back to 2006.  The attacks have gotten worse.  Huffpost, Kos, Democraticunderground, Josh Marshall, Air America, Ed Schultz, Rancid Randi Rhodes.
    you name it, they have all been after us.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama is (5.00 / 3) (#129)
    by sas on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:25:47 PM EST
    no Democrat

    He will privatize Social Security, has a health care plan that is Republican lite, praises Reagan, discounts Clinton's accomplishments in the 90's, avoids gays, paints Bill and Hillary as racists, calls small town Americans clingy and bitter, tells people that if they have no job they have no dignity, etc

    What kind of Democrat is that?  A Republican democrat....the Democrats used to be the 'party of the people' - you sure can;t say that about Obama.

    He is a DOC - Democrat by convenience

    [ Parent ]

    These Trolls are annoying: (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by Deadalus on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:33:27 PM EST
    1.  He's never mentioned privatizing Social Security.
    2.  His health care plan is one geared to actually passing, unlike Hillary's.
    3.  He praised Reagan's ability to get things done.  Big deal.
    4.  Clinton's accomplishments in the 90's were NOT progressive.  Seriously, where were you?  Progressives have never thought the Clintons were with them.
    5.  He never said Bill and Hillary are racist.  Using racial coding for political expediency is different than being racist, though that distinction is lost in heated arguments, it's quite important.  And he's not accused them of either.
    6.  He never called small town Americans clingy.  He made statements that any political scientist in the country would agree are true.
    7.  He never said if people have no job, they have no dignity.  YOu're distorting again.


    [ Parent ]
    despicable crap. you are the troll. (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by RalphB on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:36:07 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Ummm...excuse me? (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by Deadalus on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:36:45 PM EST
    How is this deespicable?  And care to rebut it instead of just name-calling?

    [ Parent ]
    deadalus, you have been personally (5.00 / 1) (#223)
    by hellothere on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:28:15 PM EST
    insulting on here ie indicating a poster is demented. come on!

    [ Parent ]
    As to your point number 3. (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by Radix on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:08:53 PM EST
    If it's simply about getting things, and we divorce ourselves from the how Reagan got things done, or what those things were Stalin or Hitler would be better models. Those 2 actually got a heck of allot more done than Reagan ever did.

    Because there are no facts, there is no truth, Just data to be manipulated

    Don Henley-The Garden of Allah

    [ Parent ]

    WE HAVE A WINNER! (none / 0) (#211)
    by Deadalus on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:23:53 PM EST
    How nice of you to bring Stalin and Hitler into what would otherwise be an inane argument about Barack Obama saying "The Republican party was the party of ideas in the 1980's".

    Very cute.  You win the Goodwin's Law Prize.

    [ Parent ]

    And how was I wrong? (5.00 / 1) (#230)
    by Radix on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:33:54 PM EST
    Since you seem to be willing to ignore what those ideas were and the methods used to achieve them. How does my analogy fail, given we aren't to consider what ideas they supported and the methods used to achieve them; but rather, the simple fact they were able to achieve there ideals. That is the sum total of your defense for Obama's statements, isn't it?

    Because there are no facts, there is no truth, Just data to be manipulated

    Don Henley-The Garden of Allah

    [ Parent ]

    Reagan doesn't equal Hitler or Stalin (none / 0) (#235)
    by Deadalus on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:37:08 PM EST
    Wow, you should really get into politics.  You've successfully completely changed the argument.

    Read upthread.   I was just saying that point #2 wasn't a "big deal".  So he praised Reagan's ability to get things done through big ideas, etc.  I don't think that's so terrible.  And fyi, Reagan wasn't Hitler or Stalin.  

    Your analogy has some, uh, weird way of advancing your argument, but it's so far-fetched as to be silly.  BO just said that the Republican party got things done in 80's.  That's admirable after the Democrats failure to do so in the 90's.

    [ Parent ]

    Actually it isn't. (5.00 / 1) (#243)
    by Radix on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:42:59 PM EST
    My argument simply exploits the flaw in your reasoning. You can't divorce the actions or ideas from the consequences of those actions or ideas, they are tied together.  

    Because there are no facts, there is no truth, Just data to be manipulated

    Don Henley-The Garden of Allah

    [ Parent ]

    That's a distinction worth making. (none / 0) (#247)
    by Deadalus on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:45:10 PM EST
    Yes, yes you can.  There's a difference between process and substance.  You can praise one's process while abhorring their substance.  And vice versa.  (For instance, I praise Senator Clinton's substance while abhorring her process).

    [ Parent ]
    Reagans process was deceit, his substance (none / 0) (#256)
    by Radix on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:01:25 AM EST
    was the weakening of the individual and working class, in favor of the corporate and the wealthy, what is there to be admired here? And this is what we were talking about to begin with. Re-read my posts, I made clear that if we were to divorce ourselves from the method and what those methods achieved then Stalin and Hitler, as far as "getting things done", or advancing their ideas is fair. You can't just say I admire the ability of person X to achieve something or some goal, with out discussing whether or not those goals or ideas are worth achieving.

    Because there are no facts, there is no truth, Just data to be manipulated

    Don Henley-The Garden of Allah

    Because there are no facts, there is no truth, Just data to be manipulated

    Don Henley-The Garden of Allah

    [ Parent ]

    I'm... (none / 0) (#178)
    by Alec82 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:58:01 PM EST
    ..an Obama supporter. I agree with many of your points, but would add this:

    1. Yes.
    2. Yes.  I would add that hers is a thinly-veiled boon to the health "care" industry.
    3. Agreed.
    4. Not until his wife ran, then they became the hope of lefties everywhere...except, of course, for the massive Iraq blunder exposing the holes in that argument.
    5. Agree mostly, which is pretty much what Frank Rich said.  It was a blunder that they couldn't live down, unfortunately for their campaign.
    6. I don't know that most political scientists would agree with this sentiment.  They'd agree that these are wedge issues exploited by Republicans, but that about ends it.  Most of the people who hold these views believe in them genuinely, however misguided we may think them to be.  It would be more honest if he just called them bigots, but that would be even more unacceptable to HRC supporters, and politically unacceptable.  So he did what you do at a fundraiser.
    7. Never even heard about this one.  


    [ Parent ]
    Skex...thanks have not laughed this much in days (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by Stellaaa on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:32:18 PM EST
    The Nation is ready for that. The new generations are more similar in attitude to the WW2 generation than to the boomer's we've watched the former flower children squander our collective wealth and prosperity in the name of their vanity. We watched them bankrupt our treasury and put a burden on our backs that is so massive that our grandchildren will probably be paying for the debt

    Honestly you see your generation as the WW2 generation?  This heroic ideal you set up in fantasy land?

    This should be post of the day.

    [ Parent ]

    What's so awesome about them? (2.00 / 1) (#139)
    by Deadalus on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:34:28 PM EST
    The WW2 generation and it's progeny have voted on divisive social issues that have pretty much doomed us for the a good while.....I'm  hoping we can do better, and it seems we can.

    [ Parent ]
    Social Security, bridges, dams (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by Radix on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:03:25 PM EST
    hell, the entire infrastructure of the U.S. was built by the WWII generation, you know, those folks who delivered for FDR. Was the WWII generation perfect, nope not at all, but everything that is admired about FDR was made possible by those folks. We could do worse than aspire to leave to our children what they left to theirs.

    Because there are no facts, there is no truth, Just data to be manipulated

    Don Henley-The Garden of Allah

    [ Parent ]

    At least you're an honest idiot (5.00 / 2) (#138)
    by RalphB on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:33:55 PM EST
    That's why Obama's supporters don't care about the Blue Collar White Vote because we'll get enough of them that added with the AA vote and other minorities we'll demolish the GOP.

    You're gonna eat that come the fall.  

    Let me get this straight, you people are like the WWII generation?  People raised on the utmost importance of self-esteem where the losers all get a trophy are comparable to the generation who lived through the great depression?  That's too ludicrous for words.

    [ Parent ]

    Better the losers get a trophy (1.00 / 1) (#140)
    by Deadalus on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:35:13 PM EST
    than the loser get the nomination.

    What's your point?

    [ Parent ]

    A loser is getting the nomination (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by nycstray on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:40:19 PM EST
    My prediction. Nov will be your truth.

    [ Parent ]
    Maybe (none / 0) (#155)
    by Deadalus on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:43:44 PM EST
    Obviously from NYC if you think Hillary is some sure-fire way to win.  Her candidacy has always been viewed with scepticism.  Though I still think either will win easily.  We'll see.  Remember, Clinton was polling in third when he got the nomination in 92.  So don't be so certain or you'll get egg on your face.

    [ Parent ]
    Hillary is a NYS Senator, not a NYC Senator (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by nycstray on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:05:41 PM EST
    I get more political benefit from Bloomberg than her, truthfully. Oh, and native Californian  ;)

    I have a problem with Obama's biography and resume. He doesn't need Ayers, Wright and anyone else in his past for a 527 Ad. A close look at his days being raised by a "single mom" and his whole "struggle growing up" would be the first starting point, then followed by all the wonderful Community Organizer work he did, followed by his days a a Civil Rights attorney arguing cases in court . . .

    Oh, and then a legit look at his part time job as a State Senator and the reaching across the aisle he hasn't done some much in DC. Maybe we can get that press conference that he slid in on for a bill he really didn't work on . . .

    yeah, dude's real solid.

    [ Parent ]

    Huh? (none / 0) (#201)
    by Deadalus on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:14:55 PM EST
    I never said she was a NYC senator.  I said YOU must be from NYC if you think she's a shoe-in.  And what is up with your bashing him for having a single mom?  Seriously, you're demented...but that's apparent by how you completely misunderstood my statement regarding NYC.

    [ Parent ]
    From what I can gather (5.00 / 1) (#227)
    by nycstray on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:31:55 PM EST
    he spent very little time being raised by a single mom. He's trying to 'use' his story to pander votes. I find it distasteful and kinda disrespectful to those that did raise him. He uses his history very conveniently without regard to how others may feel, imo.

    The reason I stated the NYS/NYC is because you seem to think my support/she's a shoe in for Hillary is based on me being in NYC. It's not, but I have been fine with her work as our Senator. We just don't see her much here in the big city  ;) And NY is not the Blue/Liberal state everyone seems to think it is. Obama's gonna have to spend resources here. He's not an auto-vote here because he has a D after his name.

    And for the record. I'm not demented, but go ahead and believe that if it makes you feel good :)

    [ Parent ]

    Whatever (none / 0) (#231)
    by Deadalus on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:34:11 PM EST
    She won 55 percent of the vote there in the Senate Race.  She's really golden eh?

    [ Parent ]
    2006 67% (5.00 / 1) (#245)
    by nycstray on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:44:35 PM EST
    Not bad considering she had to deal with all those red areas of the state . . .

    [ Parent ]
    It's (none / 0) (#171)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:52:26 PM EST
    kind of easy to predict after seeing how Obama has run his campaign: black vs. white. Sets it up for McCain to start with 77% of the vote and go down from there.

    [ Parent ]
    playing video games is not the (none / 0) (#145)
    by RalphB on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:37:29 PM EST
    same as WWII is a start.  The rest of your crap isn't worth a response.

    [ Parent ]
    Pathetic. (none / 0) (#148)
    by Deadalus on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:39:39 PM EST
    My response = crap.

    Yet your stupid ad hominem isn't?

    And how do you know how old I am?  And some petty anecdote about a loser getting a trophy somewhere isn't indicative of any major trend.  It's just some media buzz story.  

    [ Parent ]

    By the way on the Flag burning (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by Rhouse on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:47:29 PM EST
    comments, be careful since Obama followed her lead and voted for the bill in an attempt to stop the movement  to pass a constitutional amendment.
    And to quote Skex from above:
    "The way to win is to motivate the 50% of the electorate who've been dismissed disenfranchised and disaffected. Those people that Clinton's Democratic party abandoned to their own meager devices back in 92.

    That's why Obama's supporters don't care about the Blue Collar White Vote because we'll get enough of them that added with the AA vote and other minorities we'll demolish the GOP.

    Follow the "lojic" - They were screwed in the past and we'll screw them now and they'll vote for Obama

    [ Parent ]

    There are left-wing activists (1.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Deadalus on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:15:16 PM EST
    that are for Clinton.  Big ones.  Ones that are respected.

    The fact that you say "left-wing activists" with such contempt indicates you're probably a Republican troll.  The left-wing activists have brought around many, many positive changes in this country.  Proud to be a liberal and an activist myself, and proud to have friends that are activists who support another candidate.  

    [ Parent ]

    Just because I am not on board with... (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by AX10 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:18:21 PM EST
    Obama and his gang does not make one a "republican troll".

    I am an independent who prefers Democrats, but after seeing them in action,  I am quite disappointed with them.

    [ Parent ]

    Look (2.00 / 2) (#47)
    by Deadalus on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:28:13 PM EST
    You're on a site called "TalkLeft".  Regardless of what you think, it's probably not a good idea to come on here and bash "left-wing activists".  That's trollish behavior.

    [ Parent ]
    yep (4.50 / 2) (#74)
    by Salo on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:40:54 PM EST
    call them Stalinist or Trotskyites.

    That's a safer way to make a few distinctions.

    [ Parent ]

    Aged terms. (none / 0) (#82)
    by Deadalus on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:43:50 PM EST
    No one is a Stalinist or Trotskyite anymore.  Not even the hard-core socialists.  They're all "neo" this and "post" that.

    [ Parent ]
    It provides some cover (none / 0) (#92)
    by Salo on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:52:06 PM EST
    that's all.

    [ Parent ]
    left wing activists for clinton? hmmmm (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by hellothere on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:31:00 PM EST
    sure there are a few places but they have been few and far between. the insults, demeaning, mean comments on msnbc and the left wing blogs tells me they are out of touch with america and real problems. they became in my humble opinion part of the problem and not the solution. by the way, please name all these big important left wing blogs for clinton. waiting

    [ Parent ]
    Okay (2.00 / 0) (#57)
    by Deadalus on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:33:27 PM EST
    Several bloggers at Talking Points Memo are pro-Clinton.  This site and MyDD have been pro-Clinton.  Harold Ickes, believe it or not, is quite the "lefty".  She also has the support of the left-wing feminist movement.  I think maybe we're talking about the netroots vs. the left-wing.  The netroots by and large has gone for Obama, true, but it's just not the case that "left-wing activists" are for him as a bloc.  

    [ Parent ]
    like i said, they are few and part between. (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by hellothere on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:37:35 PM EST
    it doesn't change the insulting, disgusting way good people who are democrats supporting another candidate were treated. what can you be thinking here!

    [ Parent ]
    Good lord (1.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Deadalus on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:40:31 PM EST
    Do you think ALL Clinton supporters have treated ALL Obama supporters with respect and dignity?  If you do, then maybe you have a complaint.  I wouldn't say that all Obama supporters have been 100 percent innocent any more than I'd say the opposite.  At the end of the day, when your reasoning for supporting a candidate is boiled down to some comments on a blog that rubbed you the wrong way, it smacks of being a "sore loser".  IT's just too important a decision to let it be determined by that.


    [ Parent ]
    oh please! don't try to start that all this and (5.00 / 3) (#83)
    by hellothere on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:44:21 PM EST
    all of those bull with me. many, many obama supporters are over the line. rude, insulting and a detriment to obama and the democractic party. i used to debate and you are not doing a very good job here. so we have threats about riots in denver? please speak to that as well.

    [ Parent ]
    Is this really (2.33 / 3) (#93)
    by Deadalus on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:52:51 PM EST
    going to be a contest about who has been more cruel?  First of all, this is all anonymous so you have no way of knowing how many people on either side are being cruel.  Nor do you know what their true motivations are, for that matter.

    Riots in Denver?  Well, millions of people have voted for him and I can't vouch for the integrity of every single one of them.  Do you want to vouch for the integrity of every single one of Hillary's supporters?  I'm sure more than a few have used the "n-word" in a moment of heated rage.  It's just a statistical probability. . .

    [ Parent ]

    you (5.00 / 4) (#126)
    by sas on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:20:59 PM EST
    don't get it do you

    we have no interest in uniting with the abusive Obamabots and their candidate

    [ Parent ]

    I guess I don't get it. (none / 0) (#131)
    by Deadalus on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:28:38 PM EST
    I don't get it all.  There are abusive people on every side of every debate.  Why make this about that?  Why not make a decision based on, I don't know, reason instead of hurt feelings?  Also, why do you insist on ignoring that there are hurt feelings on the other side as well?  

    [ Parent ]
    deadalus, you really do the hillary (5.00 / 2) (#194)
    by hellothere on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:10:39 PM EST
    supporters a serious diservice here with your take. it is an insult to think that the only thing motivating us is hurt feelings. dang! it has been pointed out time and again by many posters who are very able including btd(an obama supporter) what the differences are. some on here don't think there is a dime's worth of difference. personally i think there is a world's worth of difference. i see serious red flags with obama.

    [ Parent ]
    Hurt feelings? (3.00 / 2) (#207)
    by nycstray on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:20:14 PM EST
    All her supporters must be girls  ;)

    [ Parent ]
    of course, many of her supporters are women! (5.00 / 1) (#212)
    by hellothere on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:24:34 PM EST
    in past years i haven't always been a fan of hillary, so rest assured it wasn't the fact that she was a woman that attracked me. i started off as an edwards supporter hoping gore would enter the contest.

    but she is a pluky lady with smarts and a  well thought out program. frankly i haven't seen a president in the last 25 years that did much good except clinton. i'll take a chance with her. i like the lady.

    [ Parent ]

    Heh, I wasn't happy about her coming to NY (none / 0) (#240)
    by nycstray on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:40:12 PM EST
    lol!~ but I was hoping for her to beat Rudy for the Senate seat before he had to drop out.

    She's got spunk on top of her brains and I like that. Her brain power really blows me away some days. Too bad Obama won't debate her anymore.

    She won my respect when she was out there fighting to expand the toxic air zone from Ground Zero. The designated zone was way too small and she got that. She also continues to fight for the Ground Zero medical funds. You never hear about it, but she hasn't forgotten or given up.

    [ Parent ]

    good post! yup, we won me over! (none / 0) (#244)
    by hellothere on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:43:41 PM EST
    i have so much respect for her now. i hope to see her come back in four years after all this is said and done.

    [ Parent ]
    Most of the Clinton (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by Salo on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:54:24 PM EST
    people were run off bigger blogs in various culls and purges. There was even a rather comical strike.

    [ Parent ]
    actually it wasn't a comedy to those on (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by hellothere on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:11:31 PM EST
    strike. the confluence is a darn good blog and well written.

    [ Parent ]
    Interesting (5.00 / 2) (#182)
    by shoephone on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:59:45 PM EST
    "Several bloggers at Talking Points Memo are pro-Clinton."

    Several? Really? Which ones?

    [ Parent ]

    Already discussed. Nice try. (none / 0) (#213)
    by Deadalus on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:24:44 PM EST
    Read upthread.  I had already posted my response to this question before you posted your question.  

    [ Parent ]
    IGNORE (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by feet on earth on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:12:23 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    you write like the left wing activists (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by hellothere on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:26:17 PM EST
    have been hillary supporters' friends. where have you been? this is the most insulting, mean spirited and defaming campaign on their part i have ever seen. and i campaigned for mccarthy. i know of what i speak.

    [ Parent ]
    seems pretty obvious that this should be done (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by oldnorthstate on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:00:53 PM EST
    and i bet it is after he gets the supers first.

    i predict a deal is struck where just that happens.

    Seat them (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Deadalus on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:01:10 PM EST
    Fully as they are, or at least Florida with some sort of Michigan compromise.  They should also do it quickly.

    if they seat them now, (5.00 / 0) (#34)
    by sancho on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:18:46 PM EST
    hillary will have a good argument with the superdems to pick her. i dont see how obama can allow that to happen. and thus i dont think he will.

    [ Parent ]
    it shouldn't be up to him (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by moll on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:36:12 PM EST
    hillary will have a good argument with the superdems to pick her. i dont see how obama can allow that to happen. and thus i dont think he will.

    We're supposed to have party leadership. They're supposed to be running the show.

    It's really not a candidates' decision which votes should count, or when.

    If - or should we now say when - the Democratic party suffers serious damage over this mismanaged primary, IMO it's 100% on the DNC leaderships' shoulders, regardless of what Clinton or Obama did to make anyone angry.  

    [ Parent ]

    Exactly. (5.00 / 3) (#77)
    by Esme on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:41:21 PM EST
    How does he get to decide whether or not Florida or Michigan are counted and seated? Who gave him this authority?

    I just don't get it.

    [ Parent ]

    Not really (1.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Deadalus on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:31:32 PM EST
    the Supers remaining are not fond of the Clintons.  Hillary is not that popular among the group.  The biggest achievement of her campaign has been convincing the public at large that the supers really want to elect her but Obama and his pesky movement are in the way.  It's just not true.  They've been dreading her for a while, as she's very unpopular in the country at large.

    [ Parent ]
    The country at large? (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:33:50 PM EST
    You know, there are a lot of polls that say that Clinton get a lot more votes than Obama.

    You may want to rethink your definitions.

    [ Parent ]

    Country at large. (1.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Deadalus on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:36:19 PM EST
    The feelings of the country at large is not  best determined by the popular vote count of the Democratic primary.  I'm sure you see the disingenuousness of your rebuttal.  Polls of the country at large (not just Democrats) show she has the highest unfavorability ratings of any candidate left in the race.  That's been true.....since day one.

    [ Parent ]
    you know, i am not sure if i would get into (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by hellothere on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:39:11 PM EST
    that debate if i were you. obama's unfavorables are within a few points of hillary. and in the ge polling she is way ahead of him in defeating mccain.

    [ Parent ]
    Depends on which cherry, er, poll (2.00 / 2) (#78)
    by Deadalus on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:41:42 PM EST
    you pick.

    [ Parent ]
    Well, if Obama does not (5.00 / 0) (#9)
    by Stellaaa on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:05:23 PM EST
    Dean and the party elites better figure out something soon. Cause they need to repair the Donna fiasco. MI and FL are a good start.  

    i think the best thing they can do for (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by hellothere on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:32:16 PM EST
    themselves is update their resumes.

    [ Parent ]
    even though Obama is the presumed nominee (5.00 / 0) (#10)
    by Josey on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:05:38 PM EST
    maybe he thinks awarding the FL & MI delegates as is would give Hillary momentum? He certainly doesn't want those women and gun totin' racists fired up!

    You're right (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by lefty lawyer on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:07:45 PM EST
    MI and FL must be seated, period, end of story.

    But it's more than that.  It's about how Obama does it.  If he has to be dragged kicking and screaming to a deal, or if he vacillates and waffles for too long (towards which he has a decided tendency), then he might as well not bother.

    He has to do this in a grandiloquent way, looking magnanimous and strategic all at the same time.  And he must do it at a time (now) that at least in theory puts his candidacy in greater jeopardy.  Otherwise, it's pointless.

    Obama has shown no ability for the sweeping gesture.  Do it now, Barack, and do it right.  Otherwise, YOU put these states at risk in November -- not Hillary Clinton, not the DNC, but YOU.  Show you can do something right, not just on substance but on the manner and tone of how you do it, and some of us who opposed you might decide that maybe you can win after all.

    Too late (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by kmblue on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:22:06 PM EST
    for Obama to score points on this.
    IMHO, that time has passed.

    [ Parent ]
    he won't. sure it looks like the right thing to do (5.00 / 0) (#59)
    by hellothere on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:33:41 PM EST
    but i have to wonder just who and what is being whispered in obama's ear. you know they said they don't need or want the democratic core. many of them are saying that. listen!

    [ Parent ]
    Obama is not a risk taker. He (none / 0) (#38)
    by MarkL on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:22:53 PM EST
    wants as many sure things as he can get.

    [ Parent ]
    Kos (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by cawaltz on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:17:53 PM EST
    lost credibility with me when he delared Hillary wasn't a Democrat and when he started operating his site under double standards for supporters of Obama and supporters of others. I read over there from time to time but the blinders are off.

    Kos and Arianna (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by txpolitico67 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:42:03 PM EST
    really never had credibility...along with Mr Americablog.  They are conservatives from the 1990s so their deep-seeded hatred for the Clintons has never abated.

    They jump the fence, declare themselves "progessives" and come out AGAINST Hillary with daggers drawn.  Then Kos has the unmitigated GALL to say Hillary isn't a DEMOCRAT? What the hell would he know?  She's been active longer in the Democratic party than he's been alive.

    That tool just came around because I think he saw an opportunity.  He loved the way he cornered Ann Coulter at that conservative conference.  Upon reflection, I feel it was probably just a stunt to convince people he was a 'progressive'.

    The above mentioned people are about as progressive as Dick Cheney.  

    [ Parent ]

    Meh (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by cawaltz on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:09:05 PM EST
    I don't usually discount people's opinions based on their political ideology(I'm married to a conservative Independant who calls little ol' moderate me a raving liberal). That said, I expect arguments to be reasoned and I tend to discount people that apply a double standard. I'm not into propaganda and I absolutely abhor when people attempt to parade opinion for fact.  

    [ Parent ]
    Real leadership would have started (5.00 / 4) (#31)
    by Anne on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:18:21 PM EST
    with all the candidates leaving their names on the ballot in Michigan, but otherwise observing the DNC "rules," not taking their names off and not getting around the rules with nonsense about "national" ad buys.

    Real leadership would have been advocating for a re-vote to give Michigan and Florida voters the delegates who would speak for them at the convention, not throwing every possible obstacle in the way, or deigning to accept a 50-50 split of delegates.

    Real leadership would be having the courage to stand up and face the voters in all 50 states and accepting the results.

    Anyone who is expecting leadership from Barack Obama ought to consider the disturbing lack of it he has exhibited to date on an issue that is central to this democracy.

    I am still struggling with the possibility that in 2008, it will be my own party that may give us an illegitimate candidate.

    Why would someone want to win that way?  I have no idea - maybe George Bush can enlighten us.

    Obama's campaign (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by txpolitico67 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:18:44 PM EST
    knows there is NO turning back from the screw ups they made with respect to MI and FL.  He took his name off the MI ballot as s political stunt to appease the power brokers at DNC, Inc.  I think that the fact that Hillary didn't buy into that action is what PISSES off Dean, Pelosi, Brazille...that whole pack of wolves.

    Florida is just a complete and miscalculated mess compliments of Howard Dean.  He tried to be this "tough leader" and penalize Floridians...even though it was a republican legislature that moved up the primary date.  How idiotic.  

    So with Obama's "I'm just following the rules" sounds just like a puppet-president-in-waiting.  He will be Kennedy's and Kerry's muse because they were too weak to ever win a presidency.  Not saying that I think Obama will win the GE, but that's their grand plan, while punishing those damn, power hungry, problem-solving Clintons.

    Begala (none / 0) (#117)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:09:46 PM EST
    had it right when he said "eggheads" didn't he? Screaming about the roolz just sounds like they are part of the egghead contention.

    [ Parent ]
    Someone said the other day, and I liked it, (5.00 / 2) (#119)
    by andgarden on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:11:41 PM EST
    that Obama is treating the nomination process like a game of SORRY.

    [ Parent ]
    The Real Question is ..... (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by josephm on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:36:29 PM EST
    Whether we seat the Florida or Michigan...
    Whether we have enough delegates or not...
    Whether we have more votes or not...

    Can the Democratic party WIN in NOVEMBER with Obama on the top of the ticket?

    That is the real question.

    The race has been extremely close using the Democratic Party rules of getting delegates. Sure, Hillary cannot catch up in delegates now in the Democratic Party rules. However, there is that REAL QUESTION. Can Obama win the General Election?

    If you use the General Election way of counting delegates (or GOP way), winner takes all, Hillary already wins the nomination.

    The real question is : Can Obama win in the General Election?

    (PS. I try not to laugh when I typed "Can Obama win?" Sorry...)


    If (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by sas on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:31:14 PM EST
    Obama wins by avoiding to do the right thing...why would you want a guy like that to be President....another arrogant weasel like the one we have now

    [ Parent ]
    Too late. (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by OrangeFur on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:47:24 PM EST
    Seating them when they don't matter is the same as not seating them at all.

    Instead of pretending to give them their influence back, which is impossible, the Democratic Party needs to apologize. The damage is done and not reversible. It's insulting to pretend otherwise.

    The GOP (4.00 / 1) (#109)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:02:35 PM EST
    was all a twitter tonight because they are now sure that they're going to win MI and FL in the fall. And without those, it's pretty much guaranteed that we'll lose in Nov.

    [ Parent ]
    Can you elaborate? (4.00 / 1) (#166)
    by OrangeFur on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:49:52 PM EST
    Where did you see this? Certainly losing 44 electoral votes over this would be a gross blunder.

    [ Parent ]
    Third party anyone? (5.00 / 3) (#90)
    by nellre on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:51:33 PM EST
    Democratic party leadership has, in my opinion, destroyed the party... and they are trying to blame Hillary for it. What a bunch of putzes.

    When life hands you lemons... time for a really competitive third party! Something not left or right, but left and right. Fiscally conservative and socially progressive. Health care paid for with the money saved by the wars we don't have.

    I think you just wrote Obama's platform (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by ineedalife on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:02:23 PM EST
    I'm serious, that is his pablum and he never really advocated for Democratic principles anyways.

    I wish he and Brazille would just re-name the party and go their own way with the AA's and eggheads in tow.

    She as much as said last night they are forming a third party within the shell of the Democratic party. The larvae eating its mom from the inside out. They think they will turn into a beautiful butterfly, but I fear a parasitic moth is going to emerge.

    [ Parent ]

    Look at it (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:08:04 PM EST
    positively: When Obama loses, and he will lose judging from his primary campaign, it will give us a chance to toss out all the people associated with the loss:
    Brazile, Dean, etc.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm already feeling queasy (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by andgarden on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:10:57 PM EST
    about the <s>"movement"</s> BORG that Stoller and Brazile say we have to join in order to be Democrats now.

    I would not be sorry if Daschle and friends finally got the boot. But if that's the price of keeping McCain out of the WH, I can live with it.

    [ Parent ]

    I'm disappointed in Dean (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by cawaltz on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:24:22 PM EST
    It appears that competing in 50 states ws just "talk" and onceit became convenient t discard that philosophy it was out the window.

    [ Parent ]
    As a life long dem perhaps (3.00 / 1) (#123)
    by nellre on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:15:44 PM EST
    I never understood the Democratic principles.
    So you are telling me these are hope and change?
    :-)

    [ Parent ]
    Well it certainly (none / 0) (#128)
    by cawaltz on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:25:27 PM EST
    ain't equal treatment for everyone.

    [ Parent ]
    I would support Hillary running on a third party (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by Exeter on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:10:17 PM EST
    I don't believe Obama can win and although I usually don't like third party runs, I think this could work.  Or, at least she could give it a go and see what the polling looked like a month out and if she had a decent shot, stay in or drop out.

    Or, she could run again in four years.

    [ Parent ]

    I would support Hillary running on a third party (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by Exeter on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:10:43 PM EST
    I don't believe Obama can win and although I usually don't like third party runs, I think this could work.  Or, at least she could give it a go and see what the polling looked like a month out and if she had a decent shot, stay in or drop out.

    Or, she could run again in four years.

    [ Parent ]

    I've heard (none / 0) (#253)
    by Jane in CA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:57:56 PM EST
    a lot of people comment that they will be writing in Hillary's name on their ballot.  This, in addition to the growing numbers of the democratic base who say they will not support Obama, indicates that there is significant potential grass roots support for an independent run by Clinton.

    I think it likely that McCain would win a split party election, but I believe that Hillary could very well beat Obama, which would effectively marginalize the democratic party, probably for good, since there is no Bill Clinton waiting in the wings to bail them out. I'd like to see that happen, I admit.

    OTOH, Hillary has demonstrated time and again that she is nothing if not a consummate democrat.  It's a shame that the party can't show her even a tenth of the loyalty she has shown the party.

    [ Parent ]

    Will (none / 0) (#147)
    by sas on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:38:21 PM EST
    it really be progressive?

    [ Parent ]
    It is already too late (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by ineedalife on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:54:34 PM EST
    Even if they are fully seated as is. The momentum he gained by the fake delegate lead he had while they were banned is an outrage.

    The Democratic glass ceiling. The female candidate has to be 2 states better than the male one. You can say that is just a coincidence, but it is funny how society's biases creep into everything. That is one reason I will not be too upset if Obama gets buried in the fall by a racial backlash. Karma and all.

    karma's a b!tch as they say (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by davnee on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:12:20 PM EST
    And Obama and the DNC are stockpiling a whole lot of the negative variety at the moment.  I'm still in awe of the goal posts being moved to the point that HRC's ability to shave ~10 points off BO's lead in two of his solid states in about two weeks time (actually flipping one) with markedly less money to spend and a persistently negative media working against her can be viewed as a death gasp for her campaign.  It's insane.  Just as insane as the DNC and Dem frontrunner giving FL and MI, two large swing states, the finger.  Might as well have the Dems post an out of business sign at the state lines.  This campaign has been more mind-blowing than even 2000.  Not the least for the fact that Obama is the black version of GWB.  Same exact campaign.  Only difference is that BO is actually less qualified to be POTUS on day one than the shrub was.  Wild!

    [ Parent ]
    I (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by sas on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:33:24 PM EST
    doubt that I'll vote for McCain....but I won't feel bad if Obama gets his ears clipped in November if he does

    why would I?  I don't think he deserves to be Pres., because he cheated to get it , just like Bush...not counting votes....

    [ Parent ]

    The (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:00:29 PM EST
    ulimate irony is that Obama's campaign says that he's going to be the nominee but he sure doesn't act like it. The "wrapping stuff up on May 20" is just more spin from Axelrod. I guess the IN loss must have hurt the way he and Kerry are spinning it as Rush Limbaugh causing Hillary to win. LOL!

    He needs to seat the delegates before OR (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by andgarden on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:01:43 PM EST
    or it will seem like he felt that he had to disenfranchise FL in order to win.

    [ Parent ]
    I agree (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:05:26 PM EST
    He needs to seat them now. And apparently he's too afraid to do it. Well, I guess it also tells us how he might run a general election campaign if he's the nominee--not well at all.

    It was also reported that the Super D's are holding back on Obama because they are afraid of more bad moments like in SF and the fact that the GOP has a ton of oppo research to unload on him. I found that interesting.

    [ Parent ]

    Well he did, didn't he? (n/t) (4.50 / 2) (#110)
    by ineedalife on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:03:31 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    He needs to seat the delegates before OR (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by andgarden on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:01:43 PM EST
    or it will seem like he felt that he had to disenfranchise FL in order to win.

    [ Parent ]
    Before we all get off into the weeds (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by kateNC on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:02:32 PM EST
    Of race and class check out this remarkably interesting post and comments at Corrente:

    http://www.correntewire.com/the_changing_democratic_demographic#comments

    BTD (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:36:56 PM EST
    Truthfully, he's not going to seat them. Let's be honest. It's too close in delegates right now. Hillary will get over a 100 immediately right? I think it's just more spin of trying to look like he's concerned about Nov. but he really isn't.

    Can't you source your material? (3.00 / 1) (#164)