home

Seating FL And MI Is About November

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • I must say.. (5.00 / 4) (#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
    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
    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
    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
    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)
    by Deadalus on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:47:12 PM EST
    50.  He's still ahead even seating them.  They'll be seated.

    Parent
    Why doesn't (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:54:49 PM EST
    he do it now then? Because he's afraid to that's why.

    Parent
    He's already talked about doing it (1.00 / 1) (#177)
    by Deadalus on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:57:28 PM EST
    It was all over the news.

    Why is this the delusional echo chamber?  Every news organization has affirmed that even with the delegates seated he will still be ahead in delegates, popular vote, and money.  Seriously, what is wrong with you guys?

    She'll net 50 delegates out of it.  He's up 160.  She's not going to make that up in the remaining races without getting 75 percent of the vote.

    It's over.

    Parent

    Lots (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:05:08 PM EST
    more voting to go before it's over. I know Obama supporters want her to drop out because by her staying in it exposes all of Obama's weaknesses. However, Obama's problems are not going to be solved by Hillary dropping out. Even getting the nomination is not going to solve his problems.

    Parent
    Ugh (none / 0) (#203)
    by Deadalus on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:17:37 PM EST
    You obviously don't understand how math works, but that's okay.  Because we democrats have proportional representation, when there are only a handful of delegates left (200 or so), she would have to win by incredible margins in order to overcome her deficit.  

    You could figure this out on your own, if you were motivated to do so, but it's apparent you're just here to whine.

    Parent

    Oh (none / 0) (#214)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:24:49 PM EST
    it's another condescending lecture from an Obama supporter about "da math". Neither are going to meet the pledged delegate magic number, right? We have lots more voting to go before we know the popular vote.

    Parent
    Wrong (none / 0) (#216)
    by Deadalus on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:25:26 PM EST
    Clinton surrogates today, including her campaign staff, have noted she will not win the popular vote either.

    I think I mentioned that above, but nice try.

    Parent

    Surrogates (none / 0) (#221)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:27:46 PM EST
    are always right, huh?

    Whatever.

    Parent

    Good Lord (none / 0) (#224)
    by Deadalus on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:28:36 PM EST
    Jesus.  Delusion 101 there.

    Parent
    I don't (none / 0) (#225)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:30:00 PM EST
    know but anyone who thinks a candidate can run on welfare and not get killed in a general election is the delusional one. Sorry.

    Parent
    Change Subject Argument Fail Error (none / 0) (#228)
    by Deadalus on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:32:58 PM EST
    See how disingenuous that was?  I never said anyone should run on welfare.  I didn't even say if i LIKED welfare.  

    I merely said that Clinton's legacy was not progressive.  It wasn't.  This is political science 101.  Deal with it.

    Parent

    He talked (none / 0) (#184)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:02:10 PM EST
    about supposedly doing it in a few weeks right? Maybe? That's what I heard. The truth is that he wants to delay doing anything about FL and MI. The Obama campaign has lied so much that I really don't believe most of what they say. I'll believe it when I see it.

    Why are Obama supporters so defensive all the time?

    Parent

    Lack of confidence in Obama (none / 0) (#202)
    by bridget on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:16:59 PM EST
    I mean, it is so obvious and has been from the start. Hanging on to a "movement" created around a media personality can do that to you esp. when the rival is a Clinton=Substance.

    German: Zukunftsangst.

    Parent

    Yes, substance. (none / 0) (#206)
    by Deadalus on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:19:22 PM EST
    Clinton's substance in the 90's was massive welfare cuts, a continuation of the military-industrial complex, and a partisan polarization that led to the take over of 94 and two terms of GWB.  

    We're a movement because we're excited to have a politician that isn't a Republican running on the Democratic ticket.  It's a movement around a personality because Barack Obama has a charming personality.  Can't fault him for that.

    Parent

    Obama (none / 0) (#218)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:26:46 PM EST
    is going to run on reinstating welfare? No wonder Obama starts off where Kerry left off in Nov 2004 demographically. And the GOP hasn't even unloaded the full oppo dump on him yet.

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/107110/Obamas-Support-Similar-Kerrys-2004.aspx

    Parent

    Deadalus (none / 0) (#234)
    by bridget on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:36:03 PM EST
    You have no idea how tired I am of reading the kind of post you are making. I have seen it on dkos, Huff, other sites. Thousands of them just like that. Exactly the same w. variations. It is always the same old Clinton hating stuff. The Clinton Derangement Syndrome that finally ruined anything the netroots may have had going for them on the net at the start.

    FYI I will ignore in future.

     

    Parent

    Talk is cheap. (none / 0) (#210)
    by Radix on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:23:45 PM EST
    Because there are no facts, there is no truth, Just data to be manipulated

    Don Henley-The Garden of Allah

    Parent

    Cheap talk. (none / 0) (#222)
    by Deadalus on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:27:58 PM EST
    That works for you in reference to "obliterating iran".

    It doesn't work so well in reference to "dismantling OPEC".

    Your gal is off the hook with cheap talk.

    Parent

    That's your response, Hilary does it too? (none / 0) (#237)
    by Radix on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:38:24 PM EST
    So if Barak sees Hilary walking off a cliff, we should expect to see him follow right along? How about a defense that simply defends him instead of one that says Hilary's worse? Do you have one of those?

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

    Don Henley-The Garden of Allah

    Parent

    I am more than able to. (none / 0) (#239)
    by Deadalus on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:39:36 PM EST
    You said "talk is cheap".

    That's just some stupid catch-phrase.  There's really nothing to defend against, and I'd rather not get dragged into some argument the subject of which isn't even defined at the onset.

    Parent

    Nice try, you said Obama has been talking (none / 0) (#249)
    by Radix on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:46:26 PM EST
    about seating MI and FL, I simply stated a truism, "talk is cheap". If he has nothing to fear then he would simply come out and say seat them as is. So, since it's over anyway, why not do just that?

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

    Don Henley-The Garden of Allah

    Parent

    Okay, I can respond to that. (none / 0) (#252)
    by Deadalus on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:54:39 PM EST
    Because there are several players involved in the process.  He's not the sole decider.  The DNC, Clinton's campaign, the state parties, and the Obama campaign are all haggling.  This is what politicians do.  I imagine they're negotiating on what to do about Michigan since it's not feasible to give Senator Clinton the entire delegation she netted while not giving him any.  

    Parent
    you can (4.00 / 1) (#170)
    by sas on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:51:51 PM EST
    be sure Obama will seat them - only after seating them is meaningless.

    We wouldn't want the Precious to get behind, after W Va, Ky and Puerto Rico voted would we?

    Parent

    Any response from Kos yet? (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by oculus on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:38:09 PM EST


    Also about stopping pundits fm crowning leaders (5.00 / 2) (#154)
    by Ellie on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:42:52 PM EST
    Establishing this important metric serves another important standard for the Dems, and one which is long overdue: letting the candidates, voters and process decide who's in and who's out, in a fair and transparent manner, rather than pundits, blog noise and spin.

    TL has already had discussions about Eric Boehlert's article in Media Matters, (So now the press tells candidates when to quit? by Eric Boehlert, Media Matters, April 30, 2008) which laid out the historically unprecedented, unmitigated gall of media's arrogance in demanding that Sen. Clinton fold up her run and go ... somewhere else.

    From Digby:

    Obama has plenty of money and there is no great problem if this thing goes on for a couple of weeks. I think everyone should relax about the campaign and start regrouping around the ideas that brought us here --- one of which is the fact that the mainstream media are tools, that Drudge is a Republican pimp and that our nation is not well served by a bunch of corporate whores who all sit around sipping mojitos on Nantucket playing with our politics like they are a rousing game of cribbage. (Hear Ye, Hear Ye, digby / Hullabaloo, 5/07/2008 10:09:00 AM)

    Discussions of electability have also centered on what the GOP attack machine will do with Obama's record, character, and race -- with the gleeful assistance of the media.

    The behavior of media going after Democrats running for office or in power, as if the party itself is illegitimate, is dismal.

    I'm no fan of the performance of the Democrats in opposing the Rethuggernaut, which is why HRC won me over with her display of guts in standing up to the gratuitous abuse, but this is a superb opportunity to really make a change by replacing this rotten Punditocracy that plays by these crooked rules with real, live Democracy!

    Much of the success of the GOP bullying is aided and abetted by a media that holds the Democrats to a different standard, and treats politics and current events as if it's one big high school gossip session in the kewl kidz kan.

    Taking a stand now means that improves the chances of whichever Dem candidate emerges from the process. This might be the real deciding factor in remaking the landscape for so that the "new politics" we've been hearing about isn't just a slogan.

    The voters get to decide the Democrats' nominee. The voters get to decide the General Election. The voters get to decide the delegates, not how many pundits loudly proclaim -- according to whisper campaigns and who spins the rumor mill the hardest -- which delegates "really" count or not.

    There's only a few ways (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by Salo on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:49:53 PM EST
    to get the media pundits out of OUR decision.

    Single day primary or a two tier run off. All candidates agree to equal and limited cash and a certified nomination as soon as the decision is made so money can be raised for the general to check the GOP

    I'd also suggest a winner take all state by state result---or a purely popular contest.

    That would reduce Tweety and Russert and other interlopers a bit.

    Parent

    I'm with ya. (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by Deadalus on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:58:50 PM EST
    That's a really interesting idea.  Also, a regional primary might be nice too...with very short span of time for pundits to influence the narrative.

    I like the cash-limit.  It would be the most revolutionary thing in politics, and will never happen.  But we can dream.....

    Parent

    You are a funny little troll (5.00 / 3) (#197)
    by davnee on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:11:07 PM EST
    I'm going to go donate to HRC just for lowering myself to acknowledge you.

    Bad money after good....? (none / 0) (#200)
    by Deadalus on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:13:00 PM EST
    I'm not a troll.  Read my comments.  They're grounded in facts and etc.  This last comment above elicited an outburst from me, which I'm embarrassed about.  But yesterday, as I worked with a poll-watcher and was accused of HRC supporters of being a racist for working with voters to ensure their votes were counted I reached a tipping point.  It was a sad day to see Democrats upset that fellow Democrats were working to make sure no one's vote was disenfranchised.  

    Parent
    Get out your shovel please (5.00 / 2) (#215)
    by davnee on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:24:56 PM EST
    because your unity pony is crapping all over this site.  You may want to clean that up before your messiah slips in it and everyone sees what his bots have been peddling in his name.

    Good night.  Off to make another donation as penance.  Will match my HRC donation with a charitable donation for good measure. In your messiah's name, I will be certain the charity does not cater to any undeserving ignorant and unwashed white people with blue collars.

    Parent

    You Obviously (5.00 / 0) (#229)
    by squeaky on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:33:41 PM EST
    Do not care, but if I were you I would take a look at the comment rules because if you keep up you will most likely be banned for disrespecting TL's rules. No profaninty, etc.

    Too late (4.66 / 3) (#17)
    by koshembos on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:10:22 PM EST
    Florida and Michigan already know that Obama through them under the bus. Calling 911 now is too late.

    Obama and his campaign wrote off Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida and Michigan. Furthermore, Obama will lose every state that the Democrats won by less than 5%.

    It will be a landslide and we didn't even mention Hispanics, Asians, women and real lefties (that's really a small number).

    We really get the leaders we deserve.

    I tend to agree (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by cawaltz on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:20:41 PM EST
    I don't think that anyone would see this as anything more than political manuevering. Thetime to do this was beforeObama had the monination "in the bag." His political cowardice will IMO cost him the two states in question.

    Parent
    It seems to me that he'll agree to it (4.00 / 2) (#1)
    by andgarden on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:59:58 PM EST
    after he wins in Oregon. Of course, there's no practical difference between doing it then and doing it now. I suppose he wants to be able to ride out the storm of WV and KY, but you might well be right that those contests will be ignored. (I actually doubt that--the media loves its story, and huge wins would keep Clinton relevant).

    But at the end of the day, there is absolutely every reason to seat them. They will have minimal impact in the end.

    It will also give him the opportunity (none / 0) (#3)
    by andgarden on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:00:36 PM EST
    to Sister Souljah his most annoying advocates.

    Parent
    That does it. I'm finally going (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by oculus on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:09:19 PM EST
    to Google the sistah.

    Parent
    How so? (none / 0) (#7)
    by Deadalus on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:03:04 PM EST
    Who exactly?  Sister Souljah-ing has been very effective for him so far...

    Parent
    Talk show barkers (none / 0) (#8)
    by andgarden on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:05:11 PM EST
    who yell and scream about the "illegal elections." That's just not helpful, and it doesn't even matter anymore.

    Parent
    Yah... (none / 0) (#11)
    by Deadalus on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:07:20 PM EST
    it could diffuse a lot of the ire.  Or at least get the Republican plants on the liberal blogs less to moan about.

    Parent
    yup (none / 0) (#18)
    by andgarden on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:11:11 PM EST
    The practical difference... (none / 0) (#40)
    by Addison on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:23:05 PM EST
    ...is in looking at the popular vote, looking at the delegate count, seeing what the situation is post OR, KY, WV, etc., and having time to plan out the exact method of counting MI and FL (btw, I think 50/50 should be right out, you might as well not count them if you're not going to actually use the votes in some form), and the spin coming out. Time is on his side, so he might as well use it. At least until May 31st, anyway.

    Parent
    If he can't seat the delegates as is (5.00 / 0) (#42)
    by andgarden on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:24:36 PM EST
    then it's frankly not correct that he has the nomination locked up. I'm pretty sure he can.

    Parent
    If he doesn't seat the delegates as is (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by litigatormom on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:00:58 PM EST
    then he's cheating by claiming victory at 2025.  

    There's no time left for a re-vote, which should have been the solution.  Obama made sure of that.

    Now he has to accept the primary results as is.  If he's really got the Big Mo now, he shouldn't be afraid to do so.  

    Or left him simply acknowledge he needs 2209 delegates to clinch the nomination.

    Parent

    Personally... (none / 0) (#55)
    by sweetthings on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:32:18 PM EST
    I suspect he's waiting to see what kind of campaign Clinton runs going forward.

    If she shifts into a Huckabee style campaign (as BTD has suggested) then look for FL and MI to be seated quickly. If she continues to go negative against him, then the issue will be pushed farther back.

    Parent

    could you point out specifc negative (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by nycstray on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:58:27 PM EST
    campaigning by Clinton during the last 2 primaries?

    Parent
    at least seat florida. (none / 0) (#72)
    by Salo on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:39:15 PM EST
    I'd rather they didn't just seat Florida (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by Step Beyond on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:36:57 PM EST
    They need to seat them both.

    Even though I'm a Floridian, I would hate to see them seat Florida and not seat Michigan. The voters in Michigan deserve to have their votes counted despite the games played by those in power. And if you remove Florida, which is more of a swing state, it becomes easier for the party powers to take for granted the state of Michigan and ignore the voters in Michigan. Count all the votes.

    Parent

    Michigan and Florida should be seated now (3.50 / 2) (#21)
    by sonya on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:12:27 PM EST
    But that's not gonna save Obama in November IF he's the nominee.

    Once you call people racists, you can't get them back on your side.  You just can't.  That's why most intelligent black people in the public eye refuse to EVER utter that charge no matter how much they're baited.  

    I ain't even gonna start on his other drama...

    I think he will (3.00 / 1) (#121)
    by Same As It Ever Was on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:13:32 PM EST
    push for it after Oregon.  I wonder how much resistance there is within the DNC.  He may need to be the presumptive nominee from the DNC's perspective before he will have the leverage to make it happen.

    I doubt (4.00 / 1) (#130)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:28:21 PM EST
    it. He's been resistant to doing anything for those states. Afterall, why would he give Hillary delegates after she would have won at least 2 states? I think that he won't even consider seating them or counting their votes until the convention.

    Parent
    I agree... (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by josephm on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:40:07 PM EST
    The only way for him to win for sure is to make Hillary quits. And, if she continues to stay strong, he will not seat those unless he has too. Remember, Obama has extremely high ego. His arrogance is so off chart that, often the medias and his wife, point it out. Like, if you remember, "a movie that goes on 30 minutes too long" kind of thinking and kind of talking. Still remember "those who voted for her(Hillary) will vote for me(Obama), but those who voted for me(Obama) will not vote for her(Hillary)." People got angry and he finally stopped saying it. However, it doesn't mean he thinks it or do something to suite this kind of arrogancy.

    Parent
    He will because at that point he should (none / 0) (#157)
    by Same As It Ever Was on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:45:08 PM EST
    have a high degree of certainty that the two races won't change the result, he will have won a majority of the pledged delegates and will be looking to resolve the issue to hasten Clinton's exit.  The timing works well because the Oregon primary is shortly before the Rules Committee meeting.

    Parent
    Hillary as VP? (3.00 / 1) (#134)
    by beyondalldoubt on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:31:59 PM EST
    I think Hillary should be Obama's VP.

    This was such a heated primary - passion on both sides like I've never seen before. I just think that Obama owes it to Hillary supporters to ask Hillary if she will be his VP.

    And don't even make it like a VP thing... but a dual thing... a co-presidency.

    Everything in the past is politics but this is life or death. We must have a democrat in the White House in 2008.

    Obama owes it to America to ask Hillary. And Hillary owes it to America to say yes.

    Unfortunately... that is not how it works..... (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by josephm on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:46:14 PM EST
    In a perfect world, yes, "would it be nice?" is a perfect ending and the Beach Boy song will start playing.

    Unfortunately, in the real world, this is not how it works. (1) Obama is too arrogant to take Hillary. (2) Hillary is willing to take Obama but he won't take a second spot. (3) The party can force the two together, which is doable, but so many party Elites/Leaders do not want to see it happen.

    Hence, in the real world, arrogance and ego take over everything.

    Parent

    maybe (3.00 / 1) (#173)
    by beyondalldoubt on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:53:41 PM EST
    Norah O'Donnel has been reporting that half of one side won't go to the other side no matter what.

    I think this isn't some dream or fantasy anymore... we better make it reality if we want to even think about winning.

    Parent

    Why would Hillary agree (4.00 / 2) (#152)
    by RalphB on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:41:27 PM EST
    to be VP and run with that loser?  Though the replay of the 1972 campaign will be fun for me to watch as an independent.

    McGovern got 17 electoral votes, Obama has to do better than that winning Illinois.


    Parent

    Eye on the Ball! (4.00 / 1) (#158)
    by beyondalldoubt on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:45:09 PM EST
    I think it would be for a unity thing, for a good of the country thing.

    You hear what I hear from those exit polls. Hillary people that will not vote for Obama AND Obama people that will not vote for Hillary.

    If they came together... its like BAM... instant unity.

    They no longer have to work on uniting their base, but they can get all of their base to go after John McCain.

    And thats what we need!

    Eye on the Ball 2008

    Parent

    The Dukakis Wing (3.00 / 1) (#168)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:50:48 PM EST
    of the Democrats with their Kerry, Kennedy, Moveon, McGovern are going to do a tremendous job of uniting the country -- around McCain.  Any hope of recruiting disillusioned Republicans isn't going to happen with this group.

    The Democratic Party has been hijacked by a certain faction of your party, and it won't be mainstream to vote for that coalition.

    Unity WILL LIKELY happen, but it won't be the unity around your candidate.

    Parent

    I really do believe that (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by Salo on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:59:24 PM EST
    liberalism or progressivism is almost a regional Identity.  There's a neagtive pattern here.

    They couldn't tolerate Clinton or Gore's drawl at the time they were active pols.  They recoiled in horror at Edwards tidewater.

    LBJ was an oaf and what not.

    Ted Kennedy  for instance.  Savages Carter a sitting President, flies off the handle when LBJ is credited for civil rights passage and barrages Hillary with the rest of his clan.

    Parent

    Teddy says Obama is (none / 0) (#196)
    by oculus on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:10:56 PM EST
    inevitable.

    Parent
    Clinton (none / 0) (#153)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:42:43 PM EST
    doesn't owe anything to America, nor to Obama and certainly owes absolutely less than nothing to the corrupt DNC.

    Parent
    Unity (2.00 / 1) (#162)
    by beyondalldoubt on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:46:55 PM EST
    This is about unity.

    I want to win in November!

    I don't want to go through 2004 again. America cannot afford 4 more years of George Bush.

    It (4.00 / 1) (#176)
    by sas on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:56:49 PM EST
    may be about unity for you...but there are alot of us who are leaving the Dem party and re-registering as independent or unaffiliated if Obama gets the nod.  He and his coalition have ruined the party for us.

    Now that the "new coalition" a la Brazile doesn't include us anymore anyway, we realize that the Dem party we knew, loved, and worked for,  doesn't exist anymore.

    So, go unite someone who cares.

    Parent

    When he gets the nom... (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by Marco21 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:12:33 PM EST
    and sadly, that's reality, I will vote for him and I do want him to beat McCain.

    I will be leaving the Democratic Party for good, too.

    I am not being a sore loser. It's the politics of "destroy the Clintons" as played by so-called progressives, the DNC and the "liberal" media.

    Smearing winning, decent Democrats at one time was a game for just the GOP.

    Not anymore.

    Parent

    How about going through 1988 (none / 0) (#169)
    by Salo on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:50:49 PM EST
    AGAIN.

    Parent
    LOL (none / 0) (#180)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:59:12 PM EST
    Yep, that's what it's looking like might happen. It's gonna be ugly if it's Obama.

    Parent
    I'm with you.... (none / 0) (#205)
    by Adept Havelock on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:19:18 PM EST
    With a McCain win, you can likely count on two more GOP SC appointees (Clarence Thomas was nominated with Dem majorities in the House and Senate).  Then you can kiss worker protections, access to the courts to fight corporate wrongdoing, and Roe V. Wade goodbye.

    IMO, those are the stakes.

    Parent

    If seating MI and FL benefited Hillary (1.00 / 1) (#16)
    by stefystef on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:09:32 PM EST
    the Obama camp would still fight the seating of the delegates.

    I believe, IMHO, that while the delegates may be seated in a matter that would benefit Obama, I think the voters of these states will remember how shabby they were treated and used only to try and solidify Obama's inevitability as the nominee.

    Especially FL will be a tough sell for Obama, IMHO.

    CSPan video (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Stellaaa on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:12:59 PM EST
    The Democratic party of Florida was treated like crap by that committee, the DNC reps and by Obama.  They have to do some heavy duty work to fix how they treated that party.  After watching that rules committee meeting when it was posted here, there is no way if I was the Dem party in Florida that I would help those guys.  It's not even just Hillary, it's how they treated the party and how they lied and smeared them to the media.  

    Parent
    The Florida Democratic party (5.00 / 0) (#25)
    by andgarden on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:14:28 PM EST
    needs Obama to be competitive in FL. If he isn't, it hurts THEM.

    Parent
    Well, sure (none / 0) (#250)
    by Eleanor A on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:46:56 PM EST
    and it hurts other Dems all the way down the ballot.  Which is why so many HRC supporters will write in Richard Nixon before they vote for Obama.  It's not just the smears against Hillary; it's the unspeakably screwed up precedent this sets.  What happens when the DNC decides certain states can't vote in general elections or for certain candidates because of some cabbage of ridiculously tortured justification?

    It's people's RIGHT to vote we're talking about here.  NOT.  THEIR.  PRIVILEGE.  IMO, you have to have a DAMN good reason to start disenfranchising voters.  A bunch of namby pamby whining about primary election dates is not in the universe of valid reasons, in my world.

    Parent

    FL voters that I know (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by stefystef on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:25:28 PM EST
    are telling me that they will never forgive the DNC for what happened because it was not the fault of the Florida Dem Party for the date change.  It was the Republican in FL and the RNC accepted the change, so it wasn't fair that Dean made such a big deal during a primary as important as this.

    This has left a bad taste in the mouths of the couple of FL Dems that I know.  And I'm sure it's a feeling that is going through FL.

    This will be a problem in November, especially in a strong Republican government working against the Dems.

    Parent

    yup (none / 0) (#45)
    by andgarden on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:27:11 PM EST
    it can't and won't be fixed in my opinion. (none / 0) (#61)
    by hellothere on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:34:29 PM EST
    rules is rules don't you know!

    Parent
    I'm in Florida (none / 0) (#160)
    by MichaelGale on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:45:38 PM EST
    watched that video too. The DNC and particularly Brazile, debased the dignity of every Democrat in Florida.

    I am so done.


    Parent

    Untrue... (2.00 / 0) (#50)
    by Addison on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:30:11 PM EST
    ...why fight it if a decent margin of Obama's victory is assured? Let's say Obama cooperates and Hillary gets within 30-50 delegates via FL/MI being seated. Do you really think superdelegates would then gasp at the narrow margin and become undecided? No way, they're not in a vacuum, they know the context, they'd see that Obama had folded on an issue for the sake of unity and November, and they'd still support Obama overwhelmingly as the presumed nominee.

    Obama isn't winning Florida. That's done and done. This is all about Michigan at this point. But Michigan is murkier than Florida, so any solution that is extensive enough to seat Michigan will necessarily include Florida.

    Parent

    no, it isn't done. it really isn't about obama. (5.00 / 0) (#75)
    by hellothere on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:41:11 PM EST
    it is about doing the right thing for these voters. it should always be about the right thing for the american people and the voters(subset).

    Parent
    It should always be... (none / 0) (#97)
    by Addison on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:54:48 PM EST
    ...but it wasn't.

    And all the candidates agreed to make it so.

    So that's why we're here now.

    Parent

    Excuse me (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:57:27 PM EST
    But you are a font of misinformation in this thread.

    The penalty was not agreed to by the candidates. they had no say in it.

    They agreed not to campaign. But they had no agreement on whether the delegates would count.

    Please stop misstating the facts on this.

    Parent

    They agreed to the decision... (1.00 / 1) (#122)
    by Addison on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:14:52 PM EST
    ...they agreed with the decision in their actions, and their actions are what matter. Of course, some went out of their way to over-agree and take their names off the ballots. Oops.

    Since they are 1/2 of the effected parties -- the other half being the voters -- and the half with the actual power to resist, they aren't some passive force here. They don't get a free pass just because they weren't involved in the actual decision, they agreed to go along with it.

    Parent

    what else could be done... (5.00 / 2) (#156)
    by Salo on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:45:02 PM EST
    ...but agree?

    Agreement was also based on the assumption that Supertuesday would be utterly decisive.

    not it's about a few dozen delegates.

    Parent

    asdf (3.00 / 1) (#172)
    by Addison on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:52:55 PM EST
    Right, that's true. But then it's also true that the candidates let their own interests trump that of the voters. Which is how this subthread got started, when someone talked about how the voters' interest should always come first. It should, but it didn't.

    Parent
    I don't get the controversy (1.00 / 1) (#24)
    by s5 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:13:47 PM EST
    Obama wants to seat MI/FL. Clinton wants to seat MI/FL. The DNC wants to seat MI/FL. At this point, no one is arguing about the goal, but rather small differences in the final outcome.

    The outcome is almost certainly going to be seating the delegates as is, with a 50% penalty to both states. MI has already awarded 35 of the 55 uncommitted delegates to Obama, which correctly acknowledges that Obama has more than zero supporters in Michigan. The 50% penalty allows the results to stand, while acknowledging that breaking the rules has consequences. The RNC punished their calendar jumping states in the same way, so there's already precedence.

    I guess anything could happen, but it seems like a done deal at this point.

    Obama is like McCain (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by Stellaaa on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:15:56 PM EST
    He says he is against torture but votes for it.  Obama  says he is for resolving MI and Fl but fights against it every chance he gets.  

    Parent
    Believe what you want (1.00 / 1) (#32)
    by s5 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:18:35 PM EST
    But I expect that it will be fully settled on May 31st.

    Parent
    It's a fact (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by Stellaaa on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:22:57 PM EST
    he fought the reelection for Michigan.  BTD covered it here.  Your position is held on belief.  Mine is on facts.

    Parent
    I never heard Obama fought to have a re-vote (5.00 / 0) (#49)
    by stefystef on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:29:03 PM EST
    in Michigan.  This is something that the MSM would have been promoting for a long time.

    I will have to try and find some supporting documentation.

    Parent

    Ha! (5.00 / 4) (#51)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:30:30 PM EST
    Yes the MSM has been killing Obama. You must be joking.

    Parent
    And Clinton... (none / 0) (#46)
    by sweetthings on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:27:19 PM EST
    Or rather, Clinton's people, (we're lookin' at you, Debbie!) fought the revote of Florida. BTD has been rightfully critical of her efforts as well.

    There's plenty of blame to go around. But I suspect that Florida and Michigan will eventually be seated, though probably with some kind of penalty. I have no idea whether or not that will help Obama any.

    Then hopefully we can get around to designing a better schedule for next time.

    Parent

    I don't think the schedule was the problem (1.00 / 1) (#67)
    by s5 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:37:06 PM EST
    In my opinion, the schedule was okay, it was the nebulous penalty that was the problem. I think the Republicans had it exactly right: penalize by 50%, end of story. Our penalty was "you get nothing but we might change our minds later, and everyone will decide together at some later date". Erm, okay.

    Parent
    Then why the fight about 2209? (5.00 / 4) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:16:54 PM EST
    Your comment is not connected with the reality of the discussion

    Parent
    It's not going to be 2209 (1.00 / 1) (#35)
    by s5 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:20:11 PM EST
    It will be 50%+1 of the total delegates after the MI/FL compromise has been settled. It can't be 2209 if the compromise is to penalize the two states by 50%.

    Parent
    Red herring (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:24:29 PM EST
    Anything deviating from 2025 is treated as a crime. Come now, be honest.

    Parent
    The number is currently 2025 (1.00 / 1) (#56)
    by s5 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:32:53 PM EST
    It will change after a compromise has been settled on. All the campaigns can go on is the number as currently set. The final number will change (and it should), but it hasn't yet. So saying "the number is 2209" presumes a specific outcome that hasn't been agreed upon. It's not 2209. It's currently 2025, and later it will probably be something greater than 2025, but we don't know yet.

    And while I'm diving into speculation about this being resolved on May 31st, it seems like the most likely outcome. I don't know, it just seems like everyone is ready. Obama's camp is releasing statements in favor of resolving it, Clinton's camp is pushing for the two states to get seated, there's a meeting planned, and there's a pretty good compromise being floated. Like I said, anything could happen, but it looks like a done deal at this point. If May 31st comes and goes with no movement, then I'll worry about it then.

    Parent

    Um (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:36:24 PM EST
    That does not make a lot of sense to me.

    You are saying there is no actual number.

    Parent

    How could there be? (3.00 / 2) (#101)
    by Alec82 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:58:02 PM EST
    I mean, if 2209 is the number, it is only because we are counting MI and FL in full, right?  But right now there is only a promise (by Dean) that they will be seated.  So the number is 2025+, but without knowing what the penalty is why would 2209 be anything other than speculative?

     To me that's why the 2209 position makes little sense, unless you plan on counting FL and MI in full, without penalty.  And that makes no sense given the reality of Michigan and the fact that the GOP imposed a penalty.  The low turnout in FL and MI is also problematic and will remain so.  THere were a lot of voters who obviously didn't bother with those primaries.  

    Parent

    Low turn out? (none / 0) (#209)
    by Radix on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:22:58 PM EST
    MI and FL had larger turnout than they've had in years for a primary.

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

    Don Henley-The Garden of Allah

    Parent

    Not compared.. (none / 0) (#219)
    by Alec82 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:27:07 PM EST
    ...to GOP turnout, which is the real (comparative) measure.

     I'm not at all happy with how the DNC treated MI and FL (especially MI, where I have plenty of friends and family), but that doesn't make the votes legitimate.    

    Parent

    Why would the GOP turnout (none / 0) (#232)
    by Step Beyond on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:34:25 PM EST
    be a more comparative measure than the turnout in other states?

    Each would be effected by multiple factors. By tying in more factors you increase the unreliability not decrease it. If you want to figure out how well a diet works, you compare people on the same diet to each other. You don't calculate the ratio of people on the diet to people on a different diet and then compare the numbers.

    Average Dem Turnout 40.74%
    Median Dem Turnout 41.75%
    Florida Dem Turnout 42.30%

    Average Repub Turnout 34.84%
    Median Repub Turnout 36.08%
    Florida Repub Turnout 50.96%

    Problem wasn't Florida Dems didn't turnout. Obviously they did. The Florida Repubs number is the one out of line.

    Parent

    Well... (none / 0) (#248)
    by Alec82 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:45:47 PM EST
    ...the Rep turnout exceeds Dem turnout in these states:

     Arizona
     Alabama
     Alaska
     Florida
     Michigan
     Utah

     The only trend I detect is a) states Dems cannot win and b) states that ignored the admittedly unfair Dem party rules.  

    Parent

    I'm really not (1.00 / 1) (#76)
    by s5 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:41:21 PM EST
    The actual number is 2025, unless the number is changed by an MI/FL compromise. Until then, it's 2025. If there's a compromise, that will add delegates to the total, but presuming that the new number will be 2209 is incorrect.

    Parent
    Unless? (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:43:21 PM EST
    You started this subthread asking what the so called controversy was.

    You said everyone agreed that they would be seated in some form. Now you say "unless."

    I think you changed your story just now.

    Parent

    Like I said (1.00 / 1) (#84)
    by s5 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:44:43 PM EST
    "At this point, no one is arguing about the goal, but rather small differences in the final outcome".

    That said, all we know is that the current number is 2025.

    Parent

    Um (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:49:02 PM EST
    You have completely contradicted yourself 3 times now.

    I have had enough. Have a good night.

    Parent

    Because Obama wants that to be the default #... (1.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Addison on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:33:37 PM EST
    ...so that he can pass it in late May with Oregon's delegates. He doesn't want to pass it by reaching a deal seating FL and MI. The final number will almost certainly be 2209, but the rules are what they are, Obama has defended them, and so his campaign needs to imprint on the public for a final time that 2025 is the number where there's a nominee, even if 2209 is the likely post-rule change number of the majority at the convention.

    Parent
    Then he is writing off Florida (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:35:53 PM EST
    That is very stupid thinking you are describing.

    Parent
    He is writing off... (1.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Addison on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:38:50 PM EST
    ...having a deal that causes him to officially be the nominee versus having a win.

    But yeah, I don't think he has much of a chance in FL anyway, and that this is mostly about MI. Naturally he should try to move the FL numbers this summer, but I'm pessimistic.

    Parent

    Huh? (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:42:10 PM EST
    I do  not follow you at all.

    If he takes the deal now, gets his delegates counted in FL and MI, he still can win in Oregon or Montana or wherever.

    I do not follow your argument at all.

    And you have no answer for the competing in Florida in November issue.

    How can you possibly think the concern you state can be compared?

    Parent

    asdf (1.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Addison on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:50:29 PM EST
    There isn't any answer for the "competing in FL" issue except that Obama will have a hard time.

    2025 is the number according to the rules. Obama wants to to win by the rules first, and win with the pledged delegates from Oregon to put him over the top. He will thereby have won by the rules everyone started out with.

    Then, after that first threshold is passed, FL and MI can be seated in a rule change and Obama, with SDs, will likely immediately pass that higher majority threshold as well.

    Just from a view of wrapping it up with no surprises, this is what Obama will probably do. Defer FL and MI until after Oregon, have that next week be FL and MI week, and then have them credentialed before June.

    I don't much care, I guess, and just want FL and MI resolved because then everyone can move on. But I doubt Obama wants to not have officially won before tossing Clinton loads of delegates and catching her up to such a degree with two contests that he was barred from campaigning in.

    Parent

    2025 is NOT the number according to the rules (5.00 / 5) (#98)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:55:02 PM EST
    It is according to a reviewable decision by the Donna Brazile Kangaroo court.

    I did not read the rest of your comment because that part pissed me off.

    The rules said a 50% penalty for Michigan and that Florida has a safe harbor and should not have been penalized at all.

    The rules were violated by the DNC.

    Parent

    Right you are. (3.00 / 1) (#114)
    by Addison on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:08:08 PM EST
    He had a chance in Florida (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by Step Beyond on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:47:06 PM EST
    but he blew that chance with his actions. I can't believe how many Obama supporters think he couldn't have won Florida so it's perfectly fine to disenfranchise the base and ignore everyone else here. That action is why he won't have a chance.

    Any Dem would have had a great chance here. Economically we are hurting just like other states. One area locally has a 15% foreclosure rate. Our schools are facing budget cuts. Homeowners insurance is outrageous and the "drop like a rock" cut in it that the Repub governor promised isn't materializing. Plus the Repubs are having some internal struggles (gotta love the Ron Paul supporters). I could go on.

    You don't get to treat the people of a state like crap then when you aren't popular here, say that you never had a chance. The chance has been here and it is his fault if he couldn't take it. The Dems have done everything to lose this state short of biting the head off a kitten on live tv.

    Parent

    Yes (3.00 / 1) (#174)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:54:21 PM EST
    and don't forget the "coattails".  I'm not familiar with Florida, but do you have any seriously shaky Democratic office-holders?

    Parent
    I'm probably just blocking them out but (4.00 / 1) (#191)
    by Step Beyond on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:06:48 PM EST
    None that come to mind off the top of my head. Some shaky Repubs though. Even US Rep Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R) has an actual challenger this year.

    Parent
    He should write off Florida... (1.00 / 1) (#89)
    by sar75 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:50:34 PM EST
    ...I'm sorry, but if I were Obama, I wouldn't waste a time or any time in Florida.  He's almost certainly not going to win there, and Dems have placed their hopes on that state two too many times.  Forget it. He doesn't need it.

    Instead, spend the money and time on New Mexico, Colorado, Iowa, Nevada, and, of course, Ohio.  

    Seriously - not a cent, not one visit.

    Parent

    Honest at least (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:52:54 PM EST
    Good for you.

    Parent
    Too many delegates to write off completely... (4.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Addison on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:52:04 PM EST
    ...the 50 state strategy include Florida. That said, the numbers after a little bit of campaigning should be scrutinized to see if movement is happening at all, or is remotely likely to happen. As I said, I'm very pessimistic.

    Parent
    So, what if a good numbers of them (3.00 / 1) (#85)
    by feet on earth on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:45:41 PM EST
    change their candidate pledge?  

    Parent
    Obama's name was not on the ballot (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by bridget on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:02:35 PM EST
    how can he get any votes at all?

    uncommitted is his name?

    I don't think so
    he should not get a single vote for MI. Period.

    Same could easily happen in Fl. No votes for Obama.

    Obama campaigned in Fl and according to the Rules he shouldn't get a single vote. It was Hillary who did nothing wrong in Fl.


    Parent

    HA! (1.00 / 1) (#132)
    by Deadalus on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:31:00 PM EST
    Ha....Olbermann and Matthews are left-wing activists?

    Where do you get these commenters from, BTD?

    But... WAIT!!! (1.00 / 1) (#190)
    by beyondalldoubt on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:06:35 PM EST
    But what about those key, key, key life and death issues like bringing our troops home from Iraq so more don't die for a lie?

    Or providing universal health care for all Americans so that we don't have six 9/11's a year from lack of health care?

    Or getting the national debt down and bringing us out of bankruptcy so we don't have to rely to China to lift us up?

    You may not like Barack Obama... but what about these CRITICAL issues of LIFE and DEATH?

    I not only loath Senator Obama, (5.00 / 1) (#220)
    by soccermom on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:27:20 PM EST
    I don't like his wife, his friends, his advisors, his backers, his bloggers, his wife's thesis, or his lack of class.

    He is a disaster waiting to happen.

    Parent

    I can play the hyperbole game, too... (5.00 / 1) (#238)
    by Alec82 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:39:11 PM EST
    ...just as dishonestly:

     "Senator Clinton will do anything to win.  She only got where she is because her husband cheated on her.  She will say anything to make the American people believe she is the annointed one.  
     Her supporters, entrapped and ensnared by a cult of personality, will drive the Democratic Party to ruins to convince others he is unelectable..." etc.

     Pretty pathetic, isn't it?  I assure you, it is just as pathetic coming from a Clinton supporter.

     "He is a disaster waiting to happen."

     What does that make her? A disaster that happened?

     Stay away from ridiculous hyperbole.  We all should.

    Parent

    He's in big trouble w/o the (none / 0) (#226)
    by oculus on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:30:04 PM EST
    soccermom, isn't he?

    Parent
    They need to be seated (none / 0) (#15)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:09:10 PM EST
    and the system needs to change.  Iowa and NH have benefitted far too long financially and the love needs to be spread.  

    The sooner the better.  An argument can be made either way right now that either demo is causing more harm than good and Obama can demonstrate his love for the party by working out a compromise before another primary.

    For the good of the party, both candidates need to eat some shovels of shieit right now.

    Absolutely (none / 0) (#23)
    by andgarden on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:13:35 PM EST
    I have a devious plan in mind that a certain number of states should adopt laws and/or constitutional amendments saying that, if any state holds a primary before a certain number of other states, candidates who compete in that primary will be ineligible to appear on the November ballot.  That would probably violate the US Constitution, but it would be good publicity for the problem.

    Parent
    HAH! (none / 0) (#149)
    by Alec82 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:39:42 PM EST
    I get booted for a night for complaining that posters on this site accuse Obama supporters of voter fraud (without a shred of evidence) and this b.s. about how all male Obama bloggers are sexist gets a free ride? Telling.

    For sure (none / 0) (#159)
    by Deadalus on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:45:20 PM EST
    Jeralyn blew it.  I was in Lake county, and I can tell you that Obama's team GOTV.  We knocked on 100,000 doors in the last week, and towards the end, everyone we came across had already voted or was on their way.  

     If Hillary supporters were more interested in canvassing and working for their candidate, they might be doing better.  It sure is a better strategy than endlessly whining about sexism on blogs.

    Parent

    Good job! (none / 0) (#186)
    by Alec82 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:02:44 PM EST
    Glad to hear you guys were successful.  

     To be fair to Jeralyn, it was BTD who "banned" me.  

    Parent

    Her supporters are out there (none / 0) (#204)
    by nycstray on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:18:05 PM EST
    and ones that can't go one the road are calling etc and having house parties. An upstate/rural NY group headed down to WV. I believe they were in either IN or NC before that. They go out and speak to the folks about how she's dealt with our states AG issues etc.(Who knew we were in the top of Ag states, lol!~) She wouldn't be in the race right now if she didn't have an active base. She wouldn't be in the campaign right now if the people weren't turning out for her. Look at the NC map, she may not have won, but she really didn't do all that shabby. You just have to hope Obama can turn those. And try and look at it VERY realistically and not based on his unity words. These are 'practical voters'. Obama doesn't seem to know how to reach them yet . . .

    And sorry if you're tired of some of us bloggers calling out sexism. I'm kinda tired of false racist claims myself.

    Parent

    Ugh, part deux (1.00 / 0) (#208)
    by Deadalus on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:22:08 PM EST
    I'm sorry you're losing, but hate to break it to you--Barack Obama has built a movement with little money from the institutions that have backed Clinton.  He has done so with the help of volunteers while she has relied mostly on plugging into pre-existing local machines and commerical phonebanking companies.  Her campaign is nowhere near a people's movement.  It's the establishment campaign.  Everyone knows this.

    I've never called anyone a racist, but I've noted that racial coding has occurred, as it was bound to.  To deny this is to deny the sky is blue.  And there is a difference between the two that while subtle, is meaningful.

    Parent

    Meh (none / 0) (#236)
    by Deadalus on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:38:19 PM EST
    Not sure that it's relevant.  I'm not exceptionally young or exceptionally old if that's what you're going for.

    No foul language (none / 0) (#241)
    by waldenpond on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:41:59 PM EST
    It messes with the filtering software.

    BTW, apparently Obama made a deal to pay off Clinton's debt (it's common).  So it's not just Clinton supporters paying, it's Obama supporters.  We've still go weeks to go.  Go donate to Obama, we need to keep Clinton in the race.

    I hope that's not true. (none / 0) (#242)
    by Deadalus on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:42:40 PM EST
    I really hope he doesn't do that.  There's something terrible about our small donations going to Mark Penn.  i say let the dead-enders pay it off.

    Parent
    How many delegates... (none / 0) (#246)
    by NO2WONDERBOY on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:45:08 PM EST
    would Hillary win by seating Fla. and Michigan?
    If they are not seated, all of you are right, he will not be a legitimate candidate. The other candidate and his backer-pundits think the blacks are going to the streets in protest if the nomination is "stolen" from him? This is NOTHING compared to what will happen if Florida and Michigan are not seated. The percentage of black votes pales in comparison to the significant importance of Florida in the national election, which has the power to make or break the possibility of democrats in the White House come November.

    Comments now closed (none / 0) (#254)
    by Jeralyn on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:58:13 PM EST
    theres a new open thread up.