Declaring Victory: Remember, Florida And Michigan Will Count In November

Politico is reporting that Barack Obama will declare victory on May 20:

Not long after the polls close in the May 20 Kentucky and Oregon primaries, Barack Obama plans to declare victory in his bid for the Democratic presidential nomination. . . .The Obama campaign agrees with the Democratic National Committee, which pegs a winning majority at 2,025 pledged delegates and superdelegates—a figure that excludes the penalized Florida and Michigan delegations.

So let me get this straight -- the first act of the self declared Democratic nominee Barack Obama will be to state that Michigan and Florida will not count? This is insane. Two key states in November will be dissed in the first act of the newly crowned Democratic nominee. At the least, Obama should wait until he has 2209 delegates counting the existing Florida and Michigan delegations. One assumes that will likely happen by the end of the primaries barring some unforeseen event. I can not understand the logic of this approach.

More . . .

By the way, the Obama campaign is badly mishandling this situation in other ways. In the Obama post NC/IN memo makes two very strange arguments. The first:

With the Clinton path to the nomination getting even narrower, we expect new and wildly creative scenarios to emerge in the coming days. While those scenarios may be entertaining, they are not legitimate and will not be considered legitimate by this campaign or its millions of supporters, volunteers, and donors.

The "wild scenario" is counting Michigan and Florida. This is simply madness from the Obama campaign at this juncture. Obama is going to be the nominee. It is time for him to think about November. The second problem from the Obama memo is its disgraceful disrespect of voters:

[T]he popular vote is a deeply flawed and illegitimate metric for deciding the nominee – since each campaign based their strategy on the acquisition of delegates. . . . Essentially, the popular vote is not much better as a metric than basing the nominee on which candidate raised more money, has more volunteers, contacted more voters, or is taller.

This is political lunacy. The Obama campaign needs to get its act together on these issues at this crucial time.

Comments closed.

< Videotape Shows Police Beating Suspects in Philadelphia | How Bad Was Mark Penn? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Fitting (5.00 / 13) (#1)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:10:00 AM EST
    and in character with the campaign he has run. I hear pundits refer to it as organized, but I see it as a bully campaign. Every episode like this speaks to which of the two candidates truly has the "entitlement" attitude, and diminishes the likelihood he will be able to move that 50% of Clinton supporters who say they can't vote for him.

    Agree! (5.00 / 6) (#13)
    by Molly Pitcher on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:17:09 AM EST
    Obama has no understanding of people, no intuition.  There is black, white, and nothing in between.  (It is fitting that the sentence could refer to both race and the nuances of life.)  He'd better concentrate on McCain, because he won't be getting any help from the old crones!  I hope Hillary goes on as I read she started, ignoring him also.

    from one of the old crones


    Old crones (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by vigkat on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:45:11 AM EST
    The Obama campaign manages to disrespect and alienate large numbers of potential voters with every move it makes. It's a puzzling approach to unity, this deliberate burning of bridges and stubborn inability to see the forest for the trees.  Judgment?

    don't you see the SCOTUS? (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by Salo on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:48:56 AM EST
    the SCOTUS!

    The Supreme Court (5.00 / 3) (#108)
    by stefystef on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:52:42 AM EST
    is important, but what is more important is the Dems keep picking the WRONG candidate.

    You can fight a bad Supreme Court choice, it's been done before.  Get a strong Congress and you can tie the hands of McCain easily.  Bush got away with as much as he did because of the Republican Congress.  But that has changed.

    The SCOTUS is no excuse to put a mediocre president.


    and McCain (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by cawaltz on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:13:23 AM EST
    MCCain.........100 years in Iraq boogedy, boogedy boo!

    I despise terror tactics. Cowardice is unbecoming.


    no way (5.00 / 2) (#232)
    by moll on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:54:58 AM EST
    the SCOTUS!

    It won't work.

    Obama's nominee for SCOTUS will be just as bad as McCain's.

    If the Dems let him get away with this, we will have two Republican parties in America, and nobody left to represent the people.

    Unify behind the candidate means "vote for a new coalition Democratic party" - one with no place (and no representation) for what used to be the core of the Democratic party.


    i want to run to the bath and barf (5.00 / 2) (#226)
    by hellothere on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:33:17 AM EST
    when i hear pundits claim obama ran a brilliant campaign. this diary makes some points on that score. when obama loses the ge(almost assured), the people who write about this campaign later won't be so suck up about it. they can compare it to jesse jackson's rainbow coalition, and it will not compare well.

    this campaign has essentially broken the democratic party. the donkey is running on life support and doesn't even seem to know it. good luck with that.


    Same Old Game (5.00 / 9) (#14)
    by Athena on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:17:26 AM EST
    When Obama says he's running to "change the game" - I think he means after it got rigged to give him the nomination.

    He's been way content to let heavy-handed powerbrokers in the MSM and the states distort the process so he can be a nominee without scrutiny and without votes.

    Not enough scrutiny?  Not enough votes?  No problem for The One.


    Obama is digging his own grave. (5.00 / 5) (#83)
    by stevenb on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:45:27 AM EST
    I just want to say this: if Obama and Axelrod are ACTUALLY THIS STUPID to deny MI and FL a full voice (especially considering his numbers are so good and he is the likely nominee), Obama deserves to lose in November.

    The arrogance to make a statement such as actual votes not being an accurate metric is THE MOST anti-democratic statement that he could possibly make.  They are insane, and the government he will setup will be ugly.  

    It is amazing that everyday some idiotic shocker comes out of the Obama campaign and very few people in the MSM actually take it up.

    No wonder the Clinton Campaign is tearing its hair out...


    Unfortunately most of MSM (5.00 / 2) (#149)
    by Benjamin3 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:04:50 AM EST
    will happily go along with him.  Any mention of MI and FL is done in the context of the Clinton campaign trying to use "new math," "changing the rule" or "moving the goalposts." [sigh]  Sometimes I really feel like we're living in a Banana Republic.

    My God (5.00 / 5) (#84)
    by Kathy on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:45:56 AM EST
    How many of us remember Bush "declaring victory" when Florida was still in turmoil?  That f-ing smirking monkey.

    The freaking arrogance.  It is gobsmacking.

    As for myself, I am phone banking Oregon every spare minute I have.  Has no one considered the possibility that her wins in WVA and KY could steamroll into an Oregon win?  Even if he eeks by, to declare victory at that point is extremely dubious.  The last polls showed tightening, if I remember right.

    This is like Russia planting a flag on the bottom of the ocean and claiming it for their own.  Reminds me of that Eddie Izzard skit:  "But, we have a flag."


    Darth Vader in the canteen (none / 0) (#101)
    by Salo on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:50:29 AM EST
    on the Death Star.

    "This tray is wet!"


    Hmmph (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by litigatormom on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:57:08 AM EST
    I said several times yesterday, here and elsewhere, that I would vote for Obama in the fall, despite my disappointment with  many aspects of his campaign.

    But this is beyond disrespecting Hillary Clinton.  He is disrespecting the voters of MI and FLA.

    And he is disrespecting me. Because he obviously doesn't want my vote.


    If he loses people (none / 0) (#203)
    by Lahdee on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:21:02 AM EST
    such as yourself, those who hope despite all, then McBush it will be.

    He is the carbon copy of Bush---doh! (4.50 / 2) (#172)
    by MarkL on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:13:20 AM EST
    And just like Bush, he is the candidate who is intended to be the elites' errand boy.
    Bush was a bit of  a Pinocchio though. I expect Obama will have a better sense of his real prerogatives.

    If I were in Clinton shoes... (5.00 / 12) (#4)
    by cosbo on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:13:25 AM EST
    I'd campaign until the last primary, rack up as much delegates and wins as possible, do not concede, and then just chill until the convention. Watch how the McCain vs. Obama play out over the summer with Obama as the presumptive nominee (and assumming SDs don't all jump on the bandwagon and put him over the edge), and then see what really happens when people vote on the ballot at the convention. This is a wild and crazy primary season. Wild and crazy things might happen. Heh.

    I agree (5.00 / 5) (#11)
    by katiebird on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:16:26 AM EST

    And since Hillary's a sticker, there's no reason to think that she won't do just that.


    Except she is out of money (none / 0) (#96)
    by BarnBabe on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:48:39 AM EST
    She should get her $5 mil back from Mark Penn. I like this scenerio. It is only right that she goes right through Puerto Rico. They all want their say in this. I hope she does not drop out. And her getting out sooner would not make me change my mind. I do not want women to be quiters. She is in this to win and she needs to fight until the end. Like Rocky.

    Penn won't get that money (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by Kathy on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:06:00 AM EST
    he'll write it off at the end of the year.  That's not a tangible debt.  All these guys zero out debts.  I've seen it on campaign after campaign.

    Stay In Place Til August (5.00 / 6) (#19)
    by Athena on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:18:32 AM EST
    I agree.  Sit tight and watch the MSM look for a new enemy.  Should be fun.

    In agreement. (5.00 / 6) (#36)
    by Angel on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:27:28 AM EST
    That's a brilliant idea! (5.00 / 7) (#55)
    by MMW on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:34:58 AM EST
    BTW - why are some on here still waiting for the Obama campaign to change their spots?

    I thought the general rule of life is that people SHOW you who they are, more than they tell you who they are.


    I for one tend to give the (none / 0) (#59)
    by bjorn on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:37:40 AM EST
    benefit of the doubt, but that is fading fast with this news.  I want Obama to be the person his supporters think he is...

    You are aware that you can't make him so. (5.00 / 0) (#93)
    by MMW on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:48:26 AM EST
    This is not a movie, where the coward finally finds his courage, just in time to lead. It's sad really but I think so many want it to be that reality is discounted.

    If tomorrow he comes out and says he agrees with the 2209 number, does that make up for the last few months? Does it make up for the sexism, for the trashing, for everything?

    Do we all run back embracing each other, laughing and smiling.

    If that were reality, divorce lawyers would be unemployed.


    I respect your point (none / 0) (#134)
    by MMW on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:00:18 AM EST
    But I'd rather have none at all than an insincere apology. It's disrespectful, and condescending.

    I totally agree n/t (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by stefystef on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:53:54 AM EST
    I also agree... (none / 0) (#85)
    by stevenb on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:46:14 AM EST
    except Clinton is running out of money big time.

    Out of money (none / 0) (#128)
    by 1jane on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:58:15 AM EST
    Clinton is fundraising in Oregon today, charging $2,300 for VIP access to her and $250 for a meet and greet.

    dang (none / 0) (#179)
    by CanadianDem on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:14:19 AM EST
    thats a pretty elitist crowd....wouldn't it be?

    She also (none / 0) (#219)
    by cmugirl on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:27:24 AM EST
    made $1 million yesterday at a women's fundraiser in  DC.

    But (none / 0) (#87)
    by Emma on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:46:31 AM EST
    Isn't McAuliffe saying there will be a nominee by June?

    I agree with what you're saying, but I'm worried about what McAuliffe is saying.  Unless he thinks 300 SDs (give or take) are going to declare for HRC.

    It all makes me very sad.  Which is totally unrelated to anything, but it does.


    Well, didn't Obama say that (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by cosbo on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:57:02 AM EST
    Indiana would a be a tie breaker?  Anyone could say anything at anytime...that doesn't mean it's going to happen. I mean, what if Clinton does what I suggest and just leave them hanging? How hysterical would that be?

    McAullife also said (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by litigatormom on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:01:11 AM EST
    that MI and FLA would be seated.

    Remember: seating MI and FLA only after the DNC awards Obama the nomination on the basis of 2025 delegates means that that MI and FLA cannot be seated. Seating them after a victory based on 2025 delegates means that they have had no impact on the nomination; it means no more that they've been given passes to the convention hall.

    2209 is the magic number. Period.


    It is time for Hillary (5.00 / 4) (#7)
    by The Realist on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:14:28 AM EST
    To go Independent.

    I wish she would do it (5.00 / 0) (#22)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:19:48 AM EST
    The party has done zilch to earn her loyalty.  She'd be totally justified.

    But she's too "loyal".  

    Just as the party, the media, and the process has been analogous to the "wife beater" who now explains that "he only did it because she deserved it", she's the beaten wife who always goes back to the husband.

    I'd respect her more if she went indy after all this.  She could take Obama and McCain votes, especially the ones Donna Brazille doesn't "need".


    She can't go independent (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by litigatormom on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:02:09 AM EST
    It would destroy her husband's legacy. She won't do it.

    Alas. I'd vote for her as an independent.


    The party has done zilch for her??? (none / 0) (#46)
    by jimotto on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:32:05 AM EST
    Let's see, 25% of the superdelegates lined up at her side before a vote had been cast.

    A majority of major party fundraisers lined up with her.

    The party infrastructure of every major democratic state with the exception of Illinois lined up with her.  

    Despite all this, she was unable to get more delegates awarded through elections.  And, now that it appears that a majority of the remaining superdelegates aren't going to side with her, you say the party has done zilch for her???  Two democrats are left running for president, one has to lose.  That is no excuse for the loser to go Lieberman.


    Massachusetts (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by bjorn on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:34:39 AM EST
    did not line up with her and she won it anyway.  I do resent the Obama people who give all the credit to Rendell in PA, but none of the blame for the loss in MASS to Patrick.  And there are plenty of other states where Obama has had a lot of institutional support

    Massachusetts (none / 0) (#140)
    by stefystef on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:02:03 AM EST
    is sick of Patrick and ready to get rid of him.
    McCain is polling better than Obama in Massachusetts.

    This MI and FL situation will haunt the DNC in August and in November.  I hope the MI and FL delegates walk out of the convention in protest of their crappy treatment.

    Unity???  I don't know about that.


    If the primaries in MI and FL (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by pie on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:41:11 AM EST
    hadn't been deliberately tampered with, we'd be in a different place right now.  

    I think you've (5.00 / 5) (#73)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:42:12 AM EST
    been seeing something I haven't been seeing.

    How about in-the-tank DNC Donna Brazille going on CNN ever day in praise of Obama...and nobody from the party came out against the bias of this.

    How about Dean wringing his hands on FL/MI to help Obama?

    How about progressive bloggers now revealing their true intention (by their actions) -- that ridding the "party" of the Clinton Pestulence was more important than winning?

    How about Moveon whom she supported in the senate, whereas Obama didn't, going after her and supporting him with their lying "vote".

    How abut the party standing aside while Obama labeled the Clintons racists.  How about them also standing by while Obama trashed the last two term presidency we had?  Good luck seeing such a thing in the next 20 years.

    Sorry, but if she declared indy, I assure you, the lion's share of her supporters would be all for it, for all of these reasons and more.


    I'd support (none / 0) (#94)
    by Emma on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:48:29 AM EST
    HRC as an independent in a New York minute.  But I'm sure she won't do it.

    If she went indy... (none / 0) (#116)
    by jeffhas on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:55:18 AM EST
    I'd absolutely support her, but she would just hand the Presidency to Obama.

    Working Class whites would split between her and McCain, and the AA'a and youth would finally be enough on their own to put him over.


    You think (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:57:48 AM EST
    she'd take more of McCain's voters than Obama's voters?  Highly doubtful.  I think she'd take some of each and might win.

    The problem (none / 0) (#191)
    by Benjamin3 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:18:10 AM EST
    is there isn't enough time to get on the ballot in all states.  I don't think Hillary would do anything like that.  

    One problem with your observations (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by AnninCA on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:50:19 AM EST
    (and I agree, btw....she did have good support).

    The system is not valid.  We now see that clearly.  Someone who has failed to put together a broad coalition and mostly performed in Red states and caucuses is about to be the nominee.

    something off with the picture

    Meanwhile, the candidate that has won the major states and has an impressive coalition that spans the population is losing.


    The system is totally valid. (none / 0) (#223)
    by jimotto on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:30:13 AM EST
    It was agreed to by all parties.  It is valid.  Is it perfect?  No, but it is valid.  And you know what?  The system allows for the candidate to be chosen by the criteria you lay out.  The superdelegates are free to look at the argument you lay out on major states, agree with it, and run to Hillary and declare her the nominee.

    But, peaking as someone living in the red state of NC (well, actually the blue state at the state level and the red state at the federal level), do you really just want democrats in the NE and West coast to make decisions for the party?  You wouldn't have a majority in congress if it wasn't for democratic congressmen from red states.  You wouldn't have a majority in the Senate if it wasn't for democratic Senators from red states.  Democrats in red states are a piece of the puzzle, and hopefully some of our states (including NC) will be part of the electoral puzzle this fall as well.


    She will never do that. She's a Dem thru and thru (none / 0) (#64)
    by jawbone on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:38:59 AM EST
    wasn't that (none / 0) (#184)
    by CanadianDem on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:15:37 AM EST
    the Lieberman route as well?

    I sensed (5.00 / 10) (#9)
    by AnninCA on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:15:17 AM EST
    that Dean would not back down, regardless of how stupid it is.

    The underlying message all along has been to redefine the Democratic party by ousting Clinton.  The truth of the matter is that Florida won't go to Obama, no matter what.  He performs very poorly with seniors, Latinos, and Jewish Dems.  Therefore, he's not going to worry about it.  He's not going to worry about the voters who view his candidacy as illegitimate, either.  The average person doesn't follow stories like this so closely.  And Dean's insider group is determined to grab the power from the Clintons.

    They are defying people to swallow it or vote Republican, counting on the fact that people are highly dissatisfied with the Republican party right now.  It's a risk they are willing to take.

    Simple (5.00 / 6) (#31)
    by Athena on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:24:52 AM EST
    Who needs Florida when you have Idaho?  LOL.

    HAHAHAHA (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:47:13 AM EST
    It is amazing where his campaign has succeeded in pushing their way up the numbers, but truly doesn't have a grasp of the voting trends in the states.

    I'm one of the 50% Clintonites who can't see a way to voting for Obama, but there are 9 other members of my family who feel the same way, and 7 more we could sway. WA is generally a blue state, but it won't be this season if 25% or more of the heavy concentration areas of democrats won't vote for Obama.

    Clinton dropping out of the race is NOT best for the country. Forcing her to do that destroys the party because it has never happened before, and it's happening to the first viable woman ever to run. The entire premise of the Democratic Party is eroding faster than the polar ice caps are melting.


    I suggest you apologize (none / 0) (#166)
    by Davidson on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:11:41 AM EST

    Or Colorado? (none / 0) (#144)
    by litigatormom on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:03:10 AM EST
    Or Washington?

    Florida? Epicenter of the 2000 debacle?  The reason why Al Gore isn't in his last year of his second term?  Who needs Florida?


    The media and the GOP (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by Davidson on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:28:56 AM EST
    They will make sure everyone is made aware of what has been done not out of concern for basic democratic principles, of course, but to hurt the Democratic party.  At this point, they have no greater ally in destroying the party than the Democratic "leadership."

    I say: let's take this to the convention.  Let them bury the Democratic party for all to see.


    yep (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by kempis on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:29:03 AM EST
    AnninCA: The underlying message all along has been to redefine the Democratic party by ousting Clinton.

    That's certainly the attitude Markos and Arianna and a lot of "progressive" bloggers have promoted. And as they toss the Clintons (and the "bitter" and unenlightened blue collar voters) out like trash, I'm following them out the door.

    I honestly don't get it. Don't these people remember that the Democratic victories in 2006 depended on these very voters that Hillary has appealed to and Obama has alienated? We're not talking ancient history here. Can they possibly think the country has undergone a profound sea-change in two years, a change that renders a Kerry-Dukakis-Mondale kind of candidate electable?

    The best hope the Dems have is that McCain will be so weak and so despised by elements in his own party that Obama can beat him. And that may be the case. But McCain is sure to benefit from a significant number of Reagan Dems who'll be voting for him over Obama in November. They'll be joined by the reluctant warriors of the conservative movement who'll see Obama as a far bigger threat than Hillary ever was.


    a Contest to see (none / 0) (#214)
    by cawaltz on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:25:54 AM EST
    which of the frontrunners are least disliked by their base. Thing is the GOP is used to compromising and marching in lockstep. THEY would be moe inclined to be scaed into voting McCain then aDemocrat being scared into voting Obama

    This is exactly it. (5.00 / 4) (#53)
    by pie on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:34:42 AM EST
    The underlying message all along has been to redefine the Democratic party by ousting Clinton.

    That's why Obama could feel comfortable trashing Bill Clinton's presidency and vilifying Hillary.  And yes, the bloggers were in on it from the get-go (as was MoveOn).  They went into full attack mode, and I didn't understand why, at first.

    They're betting we'll all accept it and embrace Obama.

    Guess we'll see.  Wonder how John Edwards feels.  Might explain more of Gore's rationale, too.


    Gore is going to endorse (1.00 / 1) (#63)
    by AnninCA on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:38:47 AM EST
    Obama soon.  He handed out a warning signal yesterday, saying "I may endorse."  

    Get ready.  It's going to be painful!


    As much as I love Al Gore, he cannot convince (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Angel on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:49:08 AM EST
    me to vote for Obama in November.  I will be writing in Hillary Clinton on my ballot.  

    I love Al Gore, too (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by sister of ye on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:01:25 AM EST
    But it won't say much for him or help his climate change crusade if he endorses the candidate that has far poorer environmental and energy policies. Al Gore support the guy who praised Republican ideas on deregulation? That would totally clinch that we've slipped into a a bizarro universe.

    What? When? Where? (none / 0) (#67)
    by jawbone on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:39:52 AM EST
    At This Point, Who Cares (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by cdalygo on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:47:21 AM EST
    Gore will endorse him. Then the Clinton campaign will release how much he and Hillary always hated each other.

    Beyond that animosity what does this endorsement say about Gore? More than anyone else - well outside of the disenfranchised voters - he should understand the political and human cost to denying someone the right to vote. Yet he's willing to toss it aside.

    Keep working on those book sales, Al.


    Gore (none / 0) (#80)
    by AnninCA on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:44:05 AM EST
    only said "I may endorse."  Given his endorsement has been so sought after, I concluded he's letting everyone know that he's about to jump off the fence.

    My guess is.....Obama.  Just reading the tea leaves here.  


    I don't understand the spotlight (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:58:36 AM EST
    on Gore. He has all but thumbed his nose at the political process with his new Hollywood life. He is too far removed from government, and he is made to look the buffoon with his "chicken little" approach to global warming. Those who believe it not only doesn't exist, but it isn't man made if it does, could care less. His superdelegate vote is more significant than his endorsement.

    The endorsements this season have changed the dynamic. They are viewed as political posturing for personal agendas. Obama has purchased his, or promised something, and that greatly diminishes the value to voters.


    Gore will lose my respect, if true (5.00 / 3) (#152)
    by Davidson on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:05:45 AM EST
    I was there in FL when the election was stolen, working for the Gore campaign.  It was my very first election as a voter and it was utterly devastating.  For him to endorse Obama, who depends on the disenfranchisement of two states to "win," is basically a big "F*** you!" to democracy, voters, and all of us who wept in 2000.

    The Democrats honestly think the media and GOP won't expose them, don't they?  My God, they've bought their own hype.  If Obama does succeed in taking the nomination, everyone will know it was by illegitimate means.  How will that help the Democratic party?  What good will Obama be as an (empty) symbol of "change" and racial progress if his candidacy is exposed as nothing more than the result of Chicago-style politics and paints him as a caricature of PC gone horribly awry.


    Gore means nothing to the core Dems (none / 0) (#196)
    by stefystef on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:19:04 AM EST
    or they would have come out in more support of him in 2000.

    Gore's opinion means very little to me and very little to the average Democratic.  

    As usual, the Democratic Party get the wrong candidate.  And the Republicans are going to have a field day.


    Gore, Richardson, Edwards, Kennedy, (none / 0) (#142)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:03:01 AM EST
    Kerry, McGovern, Carter are all presidential contenders who lost. The democratic party doesn't forget that. Their day in the sun ended when they lost either their bid for nomination, or the election. It stands to jealous reason they sure wouldn't want both Clinton's to get their day in the oval office.

    What happens to Edwards delegates? (none / 0) (#129)
    by jawbone on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:58:33 AM EST
    He's not giving them to Obama, right?

    And they're pledged to him until the second round of voting at the Convention, when all delegates can vote their own minds, right?


    What happens to Edwards delegates... (none / 0) (#195)
    by bobbski on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:18:37 AM EST
    "And they're pledged to him until the second round of voting at the Convention, when all delegates can vote their own minds, right?"

    IIRC, under "The Rules" pledged delegates are not required to vote for the candidate to whom they have been pledged.

    Seem to have read that somewhere.


    I think you're right (5.00 / 3) (#68)
    by MMW on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:40:29 AM EST
    but for a different sentence than the other responders here :)

    "They are defying people to swallow it or vote Republican, counting on the fact that people are highly dissatisfied with the Republican party right now.  It's a risk they are willing to take."

    That last sentence is key. The last two years since the 06 elections the meme has been that Dems can't lose this one because the Reps are so bad, the country fed up with them.

    The weirdest thing is - I've always thought that idea was totally wrong, particularly when Reid and Pelosi have accomplished exactly zip.


    For a little historical perspective (5.00 / 2) (#150)
    by esmense on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:05:14 AM EST
    This is just the attitude the Dems had in '72 -- that both the war and Nixon were so unpopular that ANY Democrat was assured of winning.

    But, with a bad candidate, that "can't lose" year turned into a disaster.


    And people might be so mad (5.00 / 2) (#190)
    by BarnBabe on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:17:53 AM EST
    That the coattail effect is the Dems could lose the Senate again. All those GOP voters are going to cross back over where they belong. One thing that men might not understand about this election. It is personal to women. It is the way most of us have lived our entire lives. And we are use to backing down in many cases. The few who don't are labeled, as Hillary, a Witch.(sp). I think Obama will only anger more women and Hillary supporters if he declares victory. A majority of woman won't care about threats of judges (been there done that). They proved that in 04 when the worse President of the US got re-elected. And if Obama steamrolls over Hillary, the women have few options in a way of conveying their unhappiness. He will already lose Florida. And I suspect in Penna, also. Maybe Ohio. So he will be making a BIG mistake if he declares victory. I caught Axelrod on CNN last night and he look terrible. Unkempt and sinister. Heh.  

    BarnBabe (5.00 / 1) (#212)
    by Kathy on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:25:29 AM EST
    you are so right.  Yet again, all these blowhards underestimate the reaction women have to this type of bullying.  Some may not be vocal about it, but when they get to the privacy of the polling booth, they know what to do.

    That is, if they show up at all.


    Exactly Zip (2.00 / 1) (#143)
    by jeffhas on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:03:09 AM EST
    Hasn't been recognized enough by mainstream voters because the R's have had the White House and D's a slim majority in the congress...

    But give 'em the White House, and ALL THE BLAME will go to the Dems - exactly Zip will become top of the fold news - they'll have a one-termer... all for the sake of purging the Clintons.

    You know - if the Repubs would simply lighten up some of their Social stances - they might be able to convince me they have a big enough tent for me.

    Just get 'neutral' on some of them, and I'm there.


    I don't know (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by Emma on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:50:36 AM EST
    My sister, who's pretty average, thinks it's totally unfair that MI votes won't count toward picking the nominee.  And when she heard I won't vote in Nov. for Obama, that made her really pay attention.

    Maybe most people don't have any real solid opinion re MI and FL primaries NOW, but that'll change when the Republicans go after it and define the topic for them.


    The perception is all that matters.... (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by AnninCA on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:59:06 AM EST
    and the public will not understand this "rule" stuff that Obama has done.  They will hear only that:

    He blocked revotes.
    MI and FL voters were stripped of their votes.
    Other states broke rules but weren't penalized in this way.

    And he stole the election.

    Add that to the current questions regarding his credentials as a "good" American (can't think how to say it nicer)....and you will see a solidifying message that he's not right for the job.

    I could also write the plan for how McCain could win handily at this point.  :)


    Bingo! (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by cmugirl on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:14:45 AM EST
    And he stole the election.

    And that's the soundbite for McCain to use  - right there in 5 words.


    Not quite. (4.85 / 7) (#76)
    by pie on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:43:37 AM EST
    They are defying people to swallow it or vote Republican, counting on the fact that people are highly dissatisfied with the Republican party right now.  It's a risk they are willing to take.

    They're dissatisfied with the Bush administration.  Dems haven't exactly been stellar either in the last eight years - congressional approval ratings anyone?


    Thank you! (5.00 / 5) (#88)
    by AnninCA on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:47:00 AM EST
    I'm looking at this risk and thinking, "Are you this stupid?"  The approval ratings for the Dems is only barely above Republicans.  The public doesn't like any of them.  LOL*

    So I agree that this is a very, very foolish move, and I'm convinced it truly will break the party.  But it's not going to be Hillary that does that.  It was be the insiders who pulled this crud who finally do it.

    I'm also ready to see a viable third party that is moderate, centrist, and with a nice dose of social liberalism and fiscal conservatism.

    And I swear......people would be calling asking where to sign up.  :)


    Also. (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by pie on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:56:18 AM EST
    I didn't realize that the Clintons were such awful democrats.  So bad, in fact, that they're being pushed aside.

    What have I missed?


    They win (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by Davidson on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:08:58 AM EST
    Oh, and they have this absurd notion of fighting the right and not holding the working class in contempt.  Bizarre!

    You know (5.00 / 15) (#10)
    by cmugirl on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:16:21 AM EST
    At this point, I say bring it on Obama.  Have your glory through August and then watch you get your behind handed to you in the fall as you watch masters at work. I just can't care anymore and frankly, it will be schadenfreude to watch him completely meltdown.  I can see the whining and hand wringing now.

    AACCKKK!  I am so disgusted with this man.

    Agreed (5.00 / 3) (#156)
    by rnibs on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:08:01 AM EST
    His focus is all on himself.  The point of the primaries was to let the voters select the nominee, not for someone to declare themselves the nominee.  

    The thing I like about Hillary is she always focuses on the voters and their needs.  And she's willing to put up with a lot of crap to try to help us.


    If the point of the primaries (5.00 / 1) (#228)
    by kenoshaMarge on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:37:55 AM EST
    is to let the voters select the nominee we all ready lost that chance when the media selected Obama and Hillary Clinton because they made the best "story" and were historic. Then they chose Obama as their darling and have force fed him to the public ever since.

    If Hillary Clinton were not such an incredibly strong candidate the media would have put her away long ago. Obama without the media at his back is not even in the same class.


    Well, at least we all know what Obama's idea of (5.00 / 5) (#15)
    by chancellor on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:17:31 AM EST
    post-partisanship is now. Michigan, to me, has always been the more dicey of the two situations, because there was far more campaign posturing surrounding the decision by candidates to keep their names off the ballot. But Florida was very clearly a case of Democrats being railroaded by Repubs in their own state. Additionally, the FL vote percentages, by candidate, were very reflective of voting patterns in other early election states.

    Hillary has already suggested that MI and FL may represent legal cases for voter rights and civil rights. All it's going to take is some group deciding to file suit on these issues and the whole Dem nominating process will turn into an extended nightmare.

    Talk About Moving The Goalposts! (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by flashman on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:17:46 AM EST
    Obama will not reach the 2,025 magic number on May 20. Rather, on that date he is all but certain to hit a different threshold--1,627 pledged delegates, which would constitute a winning majority among the 3,253 total pledged delegates if Florida and Michigan are not included

    Now the magic number is 1,627???  What balony!  This claim is utterly false and misleading.  Obama will never reach 2025 in pleadged delegates, and he knows it.  So, he wants to move the number to something he can achieve.  All these silly "magic number" games are irrelevant.  At the end of the day, the pleadged and super delegates will be counted, and whomever has the most will win.  There is no rational for calling the race early.

    Interestingly (none / 0) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:18:59 AM EST
    I did not even focus on that because it struck me as rather stupid. The 2025 issue is the tough one.

    not really (none / 0) (#26)
    by TruthMatters on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:21:06 AM EST
    once Obama basically agreed to the MI compromise he is all but agreeing then to raise the number from 2,025.

    but he is also helping to ensure the supers can move to him, and Hillary has little options left to stay in.

    and at this point I highly doubt Hillary rejects the MI compromise.


    Remember (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by flashman on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:28:23 AM EST
    Let's keep in mind that neither will make the 2025 number of the 22... whatever it may be raised to.  Also, let's dismiss all the chatter about SD's truncating the process.  Remember, SD's are not pleadged, and really don't count until they vote at the convention.  The media has been pinping a wrong impression about that.  Those of us who, like me, have threshold "senior citizen" memories need to refresh our information base from time to time.

    She could let it go to the convention (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by Manuel on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:30:28 AM EST
    That's the scenario the DNC does not want to see.

    She will accept it I imagine (none / 0) (#38)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:27:54 AM EST
    Her lead was was 18 delegates in Michigan. This way she get the popular vote accepted from Michigan.

    This makes me.... (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by indymom on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:18:33 AM EST

    And the guy's campaign who released this memo (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:20:20 AM EST
    is going to be the Democratic nominee?  This is so sick and so sad!

    Still a good chance Obama will lose Popular (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by Exeter on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:22:47 AM EST
    vote. And he is still neck and neck with Clinton in the polls.  

    Interesting article (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by AnninCA on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:42:54 AM EST
    here on FL/MI situation that was on the other thread.  Think it might apply more to this thread.

    Really good read.....and I'd love to hear what you guys think.



    I don't understand the tone (5.00 / 6) (#28)
    by bjorn on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:23:30 AM EST
    of the Obama campaign at this point.  When is he going to start being a leader and a gracious winner.  I was disturbed yesterday when Eugene Robinson on Race08 said he had info to suggest Obama was not going to make it easy for Clinton, was not going to offer to pay her campaign debt, etc...like he does not need Clinton.  I thought maybe he was exaggerating but the info in this post lends support to what he said.  Very sad.

    She doesn't need him either (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by jeffhas on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:08:53 AM EST
    If she were to accept his help, she'd have to sell her soul to support him.

    She doesn't need him to help her pay her debt - she has a former president as a husband, they can go out and speak or send letters & emails - she will get the money to pay her debt over a couple of months.

    If I find out she's supporting him because of JUST THE APPEARANCE that he is blackmailing her with debt relief I'll be crushed as an HRC supporter.


    This whole debt issue (5.00 / 2) (#162)
    by lilburro on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:09:38 AM EST
    I find ridiculous.  It is being used mostly to humiliate her.  It's in very, very bad taste, IMO.

    Not surprising (5.00 / 4) (#33)
    by Manuel on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:25:16 AM EST
    Disrespect FL and MI.
    Disrespect the Voters.
    Disrespect the oponent.

    I am even less hopeful there will be a united party in November.  The Obama campaign must be very confident in its ability to get independents and Republicans.  They realy must think they don't need Clinton supporters to win as Donna Brazille implied Tuesday night.

    the logic (5.00 / 4) (#47)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:32:16 AM EST
    they are starting to believe their own spin.
    the most dangerous of political bungles.

    Missing the point (5.00 / 8) (#60)
    by pluege on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:37:44 AM EST
    Obama's campaign has always been about beating Clinton. It has had little to do with Obama becoming POTUS.

    very true (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by Josey on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:50:52 AM EST
    the DC/Dem and media establishment propped up a newbie senator to run against a knowledgeable and experienced candidate who really would shake up Washington.
    Puppets are puppets regardless of Party affiliation.

    Obama's campaign (5.00 / 5) (#69)
    by Josey on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:40:43 AM EST
    has consistently depicted Obama as a "victim" (straight from Wright's ideology) - even while Obama is supported by the Washington establishment he claims he'll "change."

    And even more Obamamite diaries emerging today claiming Hillary is a racist, simply because she pointed out the stats that white working class voters support her.
    Of course, the Clintons were respected and admired by the AA community until Obama and his surrogates began pulling the Race Card and "misinterpreting" Clinton remarks as racist.
    And that is unforgiveable.

    Plus this act will further divide the party (5.00 / 6) (#86)
    by BigB on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:46:30 AM EST
    if Obama declares on May 20 that he has won the nomination without resolving MI and FL then the Democratic party is no more.

    There will be an Obama wing of the party and all the rest of us.

    I have now come to the point where I no longer think of myself as part of any party that has anything to do with Obama. Howard Dean, Donna Brazille, John Kerry, and Nancy Pelosi.

    As of now, I am an unaffiliated voter who supports Hillary Clinton.

    that's what Brazile said (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by Josey on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:03:27 AM EST
    >>>There will be an Obama wing of the party and all the rest of us.

    White blue collar and Hispanic voters are no longer needed to win elections.
    The "New Democratic Party" is comprised of Obamacrats - the wealthy, blacks, and the young.

    FREE Obamacrat tattoos to be offered at local Dem Party offices!


    I'm with you! (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by jeffhas on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:10:13 AM EST
    Thanks and Good-bye (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by misspeach2008 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:54:02 AM EST
    I've been recuperating from surgery for the last several weeks and participating at this site has been a link to the outside world.  Today my doctor gave me permission to resume my life, and Senator Obama has released me from any commitment to the Democratic Party.  I really appreciate your hospitality and admire the level of discourse that has been displayed here.  Thank you.  I will, of course, continue to support our lady - and a lady she truly is.

    Miss Peach

    God bless and Good luck (none / 0) (#121)
    by blogtopus on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:56:40 AM EST
    I've been there. I hope you're excited about returning to the real world! I was, and it has been great ever since! :-)

    Good luck to you (none / 0) (#200)
    by ruffian on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:20:45 AM EST
    I've enjoyed your comments.

    Be careful with that newfound liberation from the Democratic party.  It is indeed heady stuff!


    Using the popular vote as a metric is no (5.00 / 2) (#118)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:55:59 AM EST
    more nutty than claiming that caucuses are good indicator of what kind of voter support a candidate can expect in the general election.

    Politicians always do this though... they look for loop holes and angles that favor their agenda.

    And they say Obama isn't a typical politician.

    I am always amazed that people buy into the notion that anyone running for President is anything but a typical politician.  I guess that's why politicians continue to engage in this deception - people buy it.

    Obama's (5.00 / 3) (#126)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:57:52 AM EST
    campaign motto should be:
    Doing everything we can to make sure John McCain is the next President.

    The message I'm getting from this is fear from the Obama campaign. I guess the committee is going to vote to seat them May 31st. Obama is trying to declare himself the winner before they do it.

    Florida (5.00 / 2) (#131)
    by View from a broad on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:58:39 AM EST
    I live in Florida, I can assure you that Obama will not win Florida.  He has said "I don't want your vote" -- so he ain't gettin' it.  I am changing my party affiliation to Independent, not that I would ever vote for a republican, it's just that I'm embarassed by the ineptitude of the DNC and I don't want to be affiliated with it.  Perhaps we will get the third party we are all longing for.

    I second all of the above (none / 0) (#209)
    by ruffian on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:23:09 AM EST
    I usually regiuster Indy, and only registered Dem when I recently moved to FL so I could vote in the primaries.  Back to Indy I go.  Whis Hillary would come with me, but she is a party girl.

    If FL and MI get seated... (5.00 / 0) (#148)
    by cmugirl on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:04:31 AM EST
    What do the FL super D's look like?  I believe most of the Michigan super D's are Hillary supporters, which could be a big boost if the delegates get seated and then the next day 15 SD's or so come out for her.

    that's the point, isn't it? (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by Kathy on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:10:48 AM EST
    SDs have said on more than one occasion that it's a game-changer if Clinton gets to within 100 pledged delegates of Obama.  It will free them up to move toward her.

    That's why she's not giving up, and why this thing isn't over.  It says to me there are a lot of SDs who are holding back their endorsements to give Clinton a chance to take this thing.

    Else, Obama would be declared the winner.

    We can't give up now, folks.  We have to keep pushing for our girl.  She's out there in the spotlight.  The least we can do is phone bank or send money or light a candle or dance the hokey pokey or whatever it is you do to bring good luck.

    Rise, Hillary, rise!


    Great...NOT (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by Cal on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:08:43 AM EST
    He can go to hell and take all his snot-nosed brats with him.  That will be the day I'll officially change my party affiliation to Indepedent.  Democrat no more.  I didn't leave the Democratic Party, it left me. Sad, sad day.

    Charming (none / 0) (#205)
    by cdalygo on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:21:32 AM EST
    An empty shallow approach that ignores how a person's core beliefs are being violated. Much like the campaign your candidate has run.

    (Actually, sorry BTD/Jeralyn, much like your candidate period.)


    My immediate reaction to Obama's e-mail (5.00 / 3) (#169)
    by Anne on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:12:38 AM EST
     is not printable; something tells me there are many of us who are united in that feeling.

    The message it sends - and states in no uncertain terms - is that we, the voters, only count insofar as we can supply him with delegates - otherwise, we are a waste of time.  Great.  That makes me feel ever-so-confident that as president, Obama would actually give a tiny rat's a$$ about us.  What will be his special metric then?  

    Well, no worries - I think it will be academic, as I expect Obama to spend the next 2 years writing a book blaming everyone AND the kitchen sink for his crushing loss in November.  

    If ever there was an example of a massive ego riding for a very hard fall, this is it, and the problem is that it is going to be taking the Democratic Party with it.  Too bad he won't be able to take the media with him, huh?

    Carter: radio no MI and FL (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:13:58 AM EST
    The great voting rights guy, said Fl and Mi should not count.  

    Obama wants half of FL deligates (5.00 / 3) (#182)
    by Sunshine on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:15:29 AM EST
    After taking his own name off the ballot...   This is like complaining you're an orphan after shooting your parents....

    Obama camp disses Hillary in (5.00 / 3) (#186)
    by ruffian on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:16:38 AM EST
    EVERY statement they make. I can't remember one thing they have said in public recently that has not ridiculed her.  

    Way to bring the party together, guys (and McCaskill)!

    Obama can't win (none / 0) (#202)
    by Sunshine on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:20:57 AM EST
    without Hillary supporters...   He better start making nice pretty soon...   In the past, split government has worked pretty good....   We're fixing to get McCain Democrats.....

    Obama want half of MI deligates (5.00 / 2) (#188)
    by Sunshine on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:17:30 AM EST
    After taking his own name off the ballot...  This is like complaining you're an orphan after shooting your parents....

    Much as I hate to agree on this point (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by Same As It Ever Was on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:17:39 AM EST
    you are absolutely right.  

    As far as declaring victory, he shouldn't do it.  At all.  

    As for the memo send out by his campaign, I thought it was a boneheaded move more likely to antagonize super delegates than persuade them.

    Bad show.

    Elevating Form Over Function (5.00 / 3) (#197)
    by cdalygo on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:19:12 AM EST
    Would be the kindest thing I could say about your post. It's supposed to be about winning in November, remember?

    I might take the time to point out that three other states moved up their primary without punishment. That included South Carolina.

    I might tell you that nothing in the rules allowed the Party to strip them of all delegates.

    But it would fall on deaf ears.

    Bottom line, Democrats used to be a party that fought for civil rights. Among the most important is suffrage. Hell, we saw first hand the cost of giving that right (W's presidency.)

    Spare me the hyper technical arguments about why suffrage doesn't matter in a primary. It ALWAYS matters, even if only for the sake of appearance.

    I didn't break any rules. (5.00 / 2) (#198)
    by Step Beyond on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:19:37 AM EST
    And neither did any other Florida or Michigan voter. You don't punish one group of people for the actions of another.

    And why would the DNC RBC forgo the punishment listed in their rules and instead disenfranchise the people? Oh thats right, because the Dems have decided that they don't need to care about the people or issues because they believe it is enough just to not be Repubs. They could have chose a punishment directed at those responsible and that kept voters enfranchised but this was so much easier.

    Obama may be the guy, but I'm the voter. And my vote belongs to me. You earn it or you don't. And frankly, a party that will so easily throw me aside and a fundamental right aside for NO REASON has not earned it.

    Everytime (5.00 / 2) (#210)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:24:09 AM EST
    you think Hillary is out for the count, Obama hands her a club to use against him. Now, she can get out in front of this "I'm the winner" stuff and start talking about how Obama is going to declare himself the winner by disenfranchising millions of voters.

    There will be no legitimate winner without the votes of both MI and FL.

    She doesnt need his money. (5.00 / 1) (#213)
    by northeast73 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:25:43 AM EST
    Nuff said.

    Demsforlife! (5.00 / 2) (#229)
    by Davidson on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:44:04 AM EST
    For some reason I'm not able to reply to your comment upthread but here it is:

    With regards to "you reap what you sow," it applies to your foolishness on that thread.  If you continue to wish ill towards Clinton supporters who cannot in good conscience vote for Obama, an all but certain loser to McCain, and then refuse to have the basic decency (not to mention smarts) to apologize, you deserve to feel the sting of defeat this November.  If you truly want Obama to win, stop being so foolish and being needlessly malicious towards others.

    i have read these post with great (5.00 / 2) (#231)
    by hellothere on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:04:32 AM EST
    interest both pro and con regarding obama's declaring himself the victor. i wonder what it is in his makeup that makes him do that? take a long hard look at the camaign he has run. take a long hard look at his chosen associates over the years. take a look at what he has done and not what he has said. i can hear what you are saying for what you are doing. obama has no resume except getting an office and immediately running for another. he asked to be given special help in the ill legislature and was given credit for bills that others had worked on for years. he was "lucky" with two potential rivals in the repub party who had peronal issues. what has he done in the senate? the answer not much. so this is what the dems are getting. they deserve it but we don't.

    In all fairness, BTD, this is what you wanted (4.66 / 3) (#32)
    by Jim J on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:24:59 AM EST
    A Democratic nominee who is "electable" in November because the media is in his back pocket. You got what you asked for.

    Clearly someone has run the calculus and doesn't think there will be blowback from disenfranchising two large states. Maybe they're right. Really only Florida is competitive for McCain, and the media will do their best to make Florida voters' disgruntlement all their own fault, as the media has in past elections.

    Obama has clearly written that state off. Just move on; he has.

    Two large states (2.50 / 2) (#151)
    by 1jane on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:05:15 AM EST
    who's voters have been sitting back watching the events. Are those states disenfranchised..or regretful for not playing by the rules.

    Will you regret it if they go GOP in Nove? (4.75 / 4) (#157)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:08:18 AM EST
    Does anyone want to win in November, or do they prefer to be smug and self righteous?

    Smug and self-righteous (5.00 / 4) (#183)
    by Kathy on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:15:34 AM EST
    it seems, which is making it very hard to be here at TL lately.  Am I the only one who is saddened by these new, spiteful, smug trolls (and some of the old ones who are now being absolute jerks)?

    I'd like to thank Dalton, though, and BTD, if he's still for Obama, for being civil and thoughtful and nice.


    Obama better really, really. really hope that (4.50 / 2) (#2)
    by tigercourse on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:12:22 AM EST
    McCain doesn't choose a Michigan VP candidate.

    But he uses the new word "metric" (4.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Exeter on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:24:33 AM EST
    in everything; )

    Maybe (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by cmugirl on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:47:37 AM EST
    he's courting the Canadian vote?  </snark>

    that (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by CanadianDem on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:12:13 AM EST
    was actually pretty funny :)

    MI has no politicians to choose from (dems or rep) (none / 0) (#122)
    by samtaylor2 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:57:00 AM EST
    There are no republicans or democrats from MI right now that help the republicans.  The most powerful republican here is the head of Oakland county, which is actually problably the most powerful position in MI (the wealthiest county in the country), but it wouldn't look good on a national ticket.  

    Democrats are the same.  The governor, unfortunately is a lame duck and Debbie Stabenhoi (spelling?), though she is awesome, she just got hit by her idiot husband sleeping with a prostitute.  "My" mayor is a criminal, and though I think Senator Conyers is the man among men and women, how does he help any of the candidates (his wife is also a nut- funny you tube video of her getting told not to call people names by a 2nd grader).

    This is the problem that Mi faces, our leaders from both parties are idiots


    MI has lots of V.P. candidates (5.00 / 1) (#208)
    by Kensdad on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:22:58 AM EST
    Obama should pick a state senator with at least 8 yrs experience and really, really good judgment!  that's the new standard...

    Ever hear of (none / 0) (#127)
    by litigatormom on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:58:05 AM EST
    Mitt Romney.  Sure, he's the ex-governor of Massachusetts.  But he's a son of Michigan, and he won the Michigan primary.

    Candice Miller. Rep. since 2002, former (none / 0) (#147)
    by tigercourse on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:04:25 AM EST
    Secretary of State who won her 1998 reelection by 1,000,000 votes.

    Are you sure? (none / 0) (#167)
    by cmugirl on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:11:46 AM EST
    I don't think there are 1 million people in her district.

    But Romney is not only from Michigan - his father was the governor


    And there are a lot of Mormons (nt) (none / 0) (#178)
    by Cream City on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:14:16 AM EST
    The funny thing is (none / 0) (#215)
    by cmugirl on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:26:12 AM EST
    I have a friend from Michigan (where I am from) who is Mormon, and she met her Mormon husband on an internet dating site for Mormons in Michigan!

    Sort of interesting. (none / 0) (#192)
    by pie on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:18:18 AM EST
    There's still a Romney sign along the road going into my town (located near Ann Arbor).  I've wondered why it hasn't been removed.  There is a Mormon congregation here.

    I meant she was reelected Michigan Secretary (none / 0) (#217)
    by tigercourse on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:26:48 AM EST
    of State by 1 million votes. So in addition to bringing her district out in force, she has won statewide twice by a good margin.

    Whew! (none / 0) (#220)
    by cmugirl on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:28:11 AM EST
    I thought Harrison Township had completely exploded since I left in August!  :)

    Stabenow (none / 0) (#185)
    by pie on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:16:17 AM EST
    voted for the bankruptcy bill.

    She is not that awesome.


    I wish he had just waited his turn, taken the VP (4.50 / 8) (#43)
    by Angel on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:30:27 AM EST
    slot, ride it out for 8 years then run for president.  Then we'd have Democrats in the White House for 16 years.  As it stands now it will be Republican for 16 years, or 12 depending on whether or not McCain would go for a second term.  Now it looks like Obama will get crushed in November and his career will be over.  I do take some consolation in that.

    Sorry Angel - (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by madamab on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:53:11 AM EST
    I didn't mean to 1-rate you. Slip of the mouse! Fixed now.

    BTD, (4.33 / 6) (#79)
    by madamab on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:43:57 AM EST
    what will it take for you to realize that, like all abusers, Obama does not care and he will not change?

    He does not care about Clinton's voters or the "old" electoral map.

    He does not care about democracy or principles like fairness or justice.

    He does not care about even the appearance of legitimacy.

    In other words, he is not a Democrat.

    And he doesn't get my vote, and won't get the Independents' votes either. Nothing will prevent him from a spectacular flameout in November.

    Thanks for nothing and f**k you, Democratic Party.

    Hello, President McCaca!

    How is this helping? (none / 0) (#233)
    by echinopsia on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:11:20 PM EST
    We tell you we feel betrayed by the Democratic Party.

    We tell you we are sick of being reviled by Obamaites.

    We tell you this is not going to convince us to vote for Obama should he be the nominee.

    The Democratic Party continues to betray us and you continue to revile us.

    Do you not see the problem here?

    What you are doing/have done is not working. Try something else, but at least, stop digging.


    I hope she stays viable - suspends or something . (4.00 / 1) (#95)
    by jawbone on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:48:35 AM EST
    What can she do to still be available in case something, say Ayers, blows up in Obama's face?

    Better Ayers blows up before he's the confirmed candidate than after the convention.

    Which means the R's will hold on to it until after the convention....

    They will wait until after the convention (5.00 / 4) (#119)
    by dianem on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:56:08 AM EST
    They had to break Obama's momentum before he established too much of a reputation, so they released the Wright video's. They don't want to damage him further until September, though. That's when they can have the biggest impact on the general election. I don't know what they'll use, but it will probably be a variation of the "Rezko/Ayers/Wright" "Obama isn't a true American" bits that they've already planted in people's mind. It's a lot easier to convince people who already have suspicions.

    Right (no pun intended) (5.00 / 2) (#161)
    by cmugirl on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:09:10 AM EST
    The Republicans don't have to do any work right now, so they're bruising him up a bit, but after Labor Day, you are going to see the equivalent of an F-% tornado being unleashed on him.  With 8 weeks left until Election Day, he won't have time to recover.

    Hillary (2.00 / 1) (#175)
    by 1jane on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:13:50 AM EST
    has to be very careful not to push too hard or she'll lose her supporters and lose the respect of her fellow Senators. The little people, that's us, matter less and less as her reputation is at risk inside the beltway. In order to continue to be seen as a leader among the powerbrokers in DC she cannot alienate anyone. She has to push party unity hard. She has already stated she will campaign hard for Senator Obama. Predictions are, she'll gracefully move into mending the riff because she, like the vast majority of Democrats will do anything not to have a third term of Bush. Do we really want to hand the county over to McCain?

    Seriously? (5.00 / 3) (#187)
    by cmugirl on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:16:53 AM EST
    Do we really want to hand the county over to McCain?

    I think the question is: Do we really want to hand the country over to Obama?


    The smart think for Obama to do... (4.00 / 4) (#106)
    by dianem on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:51:35 AM EST
    ...would be to simply keep campaigning, taking advantage of the limelight being shone on him during the primary. He could announce that he respects Clinton's decision to take this to the convention and he looks forward to the convention and is totally confident that he will be the victor. He should say what Bill Clinton said in South Carolina: Clinton ran a good campaign, and he has appreciated honing his skills against such a formidable opponent.

    Then he should proceed to start talking to Clinton's voter's, asking them for their vote in November should he win the primary, as expected. He should put out position papers about where he stands on issues that are important to them and promote them daily. He should make them want to vote for him, instead of letting his bully supporter's tell them that they have to vote for him in order to oppose McCain.

    In short: Obama should stand up an present himself as a winner instead of continuing to act like a streetfighter who got in a lucky punch on the the local champion and now has to spend all of his time looking over his shoulder out of fear that a fair fight is on the way that might cost him his win.


    Absolutely. (none / 0) (#230)
    by liminal on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:50:36 AM EST
    I agree with everything you said.  

    what are you guys talking about (3.00 / 2) (#35)
    by TruthMatters on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:27:25 AM EST
    its already been posted TWICE, that MI has already proposed a plan, the Obama campaign has all but agreed,

    right now the only thing keeping MI from being seated is Hillary and the DNC saying yes.

    so why are we still attacking Obama on MI again? because you guys don't like the plan the MI democratic party came up with?

    Take it easy (4.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:28:46 AM EST
    When it becomes official, then we can start saying Obama flip flopped on 2025 . . . .

    Honestly... (3.00 / 2) (#66)
    by mike in dc on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:39:29 AM EST
    ...does it really make a huge difference if FL and MI don't "count" until May 31st?  

    The point of the exercise, from the standpoint of the frontrunner and presumptive nominee, is to end the race as quickly as possible.  Under existing rules, until the RBC and/or Credentials Committee decides otherwise(and that won't happen until May 31st at the earliest), there are a grand total of 4049 delegates out there, of which about 3254 or so are pledged delegates.   Winning a majority of those pledged delegates is a very big deal.  In all likelihood, when that number is reached, a large number of superdelegates will come out in support of the pledged delegate winner, probably enough to equal or exceed 2025, half of the legally recognized delegates at that point.  At that point, since FL and MI's status is yet undetermined, the frontrunner is essentially the presumptive nominee.

    Which brings us to FL and MI.  If you're the frontrunner, and it's extremely important for the general election and otherwise to bring the nomination race to a swift and decisive conclusion, why give your opponent a chance to steal the nomination away from you?

    If Obama came out today and said, "I will accept FL and MI delegations as voted", the following things would happen:

    1. the media narrative would shift--"Does Clinton now have a real chance to win?"
    2. Clinton would have a real incentive to go negative on Obama, in an effort to eke out an upset win in Oregon and try to sweep the remaining contests
    3. She would go to the superdelegates and say, "See?  Now there's a way I can win, and here's why you should pick me instead!"
    4. The nominating contest would continue until at least mid-June, costing a month's worth of funds, media, and lost opportunities to define McCain.
    5. The benefit in terms of MI/FL voters would be outweighed by all of the above, in the mind of the frontrunner's campaign.

    On the other hand, in the "I declare victory on May 20th" scenario, the frontrunner picks up enough to win 2025(and, in all probability, enough to block the runner-up from being able to secure victory even with their best-case-scenario with respect to FL/MI), pressure mounts on the runner up to concede before the end of the week, and then the winner magnanimously agrees to a compromise on FL/MI which permits the FL vote to stand as is, and MI to be split 50-50.  The "damage" to the frontrunner's campaign by the 10-20 day delay is minimal, in my opinion, particularly compared to the potential damage by doing so today.  What sub-group of FL/MI voters is going to be so petty that they say "yeah, we got seated at the convention and our votes counted, but because he waited too long to do it, we're voting for McCain instead"?  If Montana, Puerto Rico and South Dakota vote after Clinton concedes, or after Obama already has the necessary delegates to win, does that mean their vote doesn't count?
    Metaphorically speaking, one campaign finally has it's foot on the other's neck--why would they take it off before the other concedes?  That's just plain dumb.

    Honestly (5.00 / 3) (#77)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:43:44 AM EST
    Does it mater that the Democratic nominee has to say Florida and Michigan do not count in order to declare victory on May 20? I think it matters a lot.

    Your comment seems really bizarre to me. Especially this part:

    "Which brings us to FL and MI.  If you're the frontrunner, and it's extremely important for the general election and otherwise to bring the nomination race to a swift and decisive conclusion, why give your opponent a chance to steal the nomination away from you?"

    My reaction is the reverse. As long as there is uncertainty about FL and MI, you seem to be arguing, Obama can claim to be the nominee. But if there is certainty, then he can not.

    that is tantamount to saying FL and MI can decide the nomination. And thus you are saying, Obama will only win if FL and MI are excluded.

    I think you are wrong on this and find your argument here counterproductive to the idea that Obama is the winner now.


    Actually... (1.00 / 1) (#136)
    by mike in dc on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:00:51 AM EST
    ...he can and almost certainly will win if they are included as well, but declaring that they are included now lengthens the campaign by up to a month. And it incentivizes negative campaigning by his opponent, which does him no benefit for the general.
    Be objective here.  Does it benefit the frontrunner more to do as you suggest, or to wait a couple more weeks?

    How much would it really hurt him politically to wait two weeks to accept the seating of FL and MI by the RBC?

    Obama has no moral obligation to give Clinton another chance to beat him, or even to increase her 2% chance to a 12% chance.

    On May 20th, he will likely be the presumptive winner of the nomination, under the existing DNC rules. By the time those rules are revisited on May 31st, he will still be the presumptive winner.

    The difference is that ceding those two creates a different narrative which delays the inevitable, and at this point it's been delayed enough, in my view.


    How does it lengthen the campaign? (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:06:59 AM EST
    Clinton will not quit, at this point I say should not quit, until FL and MI are resolved.

    I think you have it exactly backwards.

    This actually give her a real rationale for continuing.


    Just what I love (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by sister of ye on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:13:25 AM EST
    A candidate who puts campaign strategy over justice. Guess we can quit condemning old time Southern politicians for things like the poll tax. After all, it was just good electoral strategy. Also Republican phone jamming, rigged electronic voting machines, "losing" Democratic registrations, etc. Gotta do what ya gotta do to win.

    Yeah, that was sarcasm.


    For whatever reasons, tallest candidate usually (3.00 / 1) (#104)
    by jawbone on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:50:52 AM EST
    has won. Candidate without balding has won in recent years.

    However, Bush was shorter than Gore or Kerry. And Kerry had definitely better hair, so those things aren't always indicators.

    actually Chuck Todd just (1.00 / 1) (#3)
    by TruthMatters on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:12:51 AM EST
    said this morning that we should look for alot of movement in the next 48 hrs on the FL and MI situation

    and MI is now prepared to submit a proposal of 69/59 and that the Obama campaign has all but approved of the MI proposal, so basically if Hillary agrees, then MI could already be settled (assuming the DNC approves of it).

    Then he should accept Florida (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:14:53 AM EST
    and be done with it.

    Obviously (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by andgarden on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:17:57 AM EST
    I mean, by not doing this, he's telegraphing a fear that the Super Delegates will actually exercise their own judgement and not nominate him. Does he not understand that the media has 100% ruled this out?

    On the key battle: that a pledged delegate majority is all that matters: he has won in the media.


    But the superdelegates have not. (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by cosbo on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:27:51 AM EST
    Only a few came out for him yesterday, despite his being "virtually certain to be the nominee". I imagine that most of the SDs are not stupid are probably realize that we are looking at a loss in the fall with Obama as the nominee. He does not a have winning coalition.

    She netted 2 actually (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:36:20 AM EST
    Ellsworth of Indiana says he would vote for he at the Convention, following his district's wishes.

    McGovern (none / 0) (#74)
    by nell on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:42:30 AM EST
    shifted his support, but he is not a superdelegate.

    McGovern, McGovern (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:51:32 AM EST
    ...now why do I remember him...?

    Oh yeah, this is why:


    Yep, if McGovern knows about nothing else, he knows about losing, although why anyone would listen to him, I have no idea.  Obviously Hillary didn't.


    yeah a Virgina (none / 0) (#82)
    by TruthMatters on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:45:18 AM EST
    super switched from Clinton to Obama yesterday.

    69/59 for Florida? (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:32:25 AM EST
    Makes no sense.

    Florida was not 73-55 like Michigan. Clinton won by 38 pledged delegates in Florida.

    And if Michigan gets all of its delegates, Florida will too. I think Florida goes in as is.

    That would mean +48 for Clinton, an interesting development of course, but no change in the fact that Obama will almost certainly be the nominee.


    Ah (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:36:47 AM EST
    Uncommitted Delegates (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by Step Beyond on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:13:07 AM EST
    Its wrong to give Obama votes he didn't earn. He didn't have to remove himself from the ballot (his remaining on the Florida ballot is proof enough of that).

    I prefer the suggestion that others have put forth that those uncommitted votes go to uncommitted delegates that each candidate can try and win.


    I don't think it matters (none / 0) (#221)
    by Step Beyond on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:29:20 AM EST
    The MI legislature doesn't get to decide. The next up to bat to decide is the DNC RBC on May 31. Kucinich has a proposal out there also. And there have been plenty of Florida proposals.

    The DNC RBC is hearing an appeal on 2 points - that SDs are automatically seated and thus could never have been removed. And that the RBC exceeded its ability by removing all delegates.

    So they are deciding whether those issues have any validity. I've seen nothing that shows me that they have the power to decide to whom those delegates are assigned, only if they exist. I know there has been a lot of talk about compromises on who gets what delegates, but where in the rules does the RBC get the power to reassign votes/delegates?


    then it's possible that Hillary (1.00 / 2) (#57)
    by kempis on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:36:32 AM EST
    ...is moving toward the exit soon. She's vowed to stay in until FL and MI are resolved. This may be an effort to pave the way for a graceful (if heartbreaking to many of us) exit for Hillary.

    And, honestly, I do hope she bows out soon. She has no chance of winning the nomination, mainly because the DNC has made it clear that they don't want to hear her electability argument. At this point, if she's staying in the race it's only sparing Obama the embarrassment of losing WV to a candidate who is no longer running and to help boost voter rolls in the remaining states for the party that has spat on her. Meanwhile, she's stuck in the stocks, held up for ridicule for staying in the race.

    I think she should go ahead and bow out with a killer speech and her supporters can take satisfaction in watching her beat Obama in WV and KY--even as she's out of the race. And with Hillary out of the picture, Russert and Tweety and  Co. will probably FINALLY begin to worry about Obama's electability issue.


    But if she succeded in forcing the DNC (5.00 / 4) (#61)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:38:04 AM EST
    to seat FL/MI when it at least had the appearance of mattering, she saved them from themselves.

    I especially like that Donna Brazile gets dissed here.


    Clinton (5.00 / 8) (#71)
    by nell on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:41:19 AM EST
    is NOT moving towards the exit.

    I was at the Generations Event in DC. This woman is in it to win it, and many of her supporters will stand with her until the last dog dies.

    She is a fighter and she understands that this election is not about her, or even us as her supporters. This is about standing up and giving every little girl in this country the chance to dream that she can be president too.

    The media has stolen that dream by the intense disrespect and sexism that they have shown towards Senator Clinton and I for one will NEVER reward the media or Obama by accepting the candidate that has been shoved down my throat.


    The line has been drawn in the sand for me.


    This is what I see, too -- girls aren't quitters (5.00 / 2) (#146)
    by Cream City on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:03:57 AM EST
    is such an important message.  It is, after all, saying that the majority of Americans -- women -- aren't quitters.  And in every speech I ever have heard (several) and read (many more) from Clinton, she knows history well -- and especially women's history.  

    She thinks as historians do, in terms of how posterity will see everything that we do -- and she he does not want the narrative to be that girls are quitters, that they don't go the distance.

    She knows that no woman will succeed in winning the presidency if this one gives up too soon.  She is building on pathbreakers before her -- after all, more than 30 women have run for the presidency, but she is the first to win a primary -- and even if she is not the nominee, she is paving the way for the next one.

    And yes, you can bet that girls and women are watching.  I teach hundreds of them, and although I am teaching them history, they are -- on their own -- tieing in their assignments so much of what they see in the past to what they are watching now.  (And you ought to see what they say about what they see in the media!)


    I appreciate the sentiments (none / 0) (#227)
    by kempis on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:37:46 AM EST
    And I deeply respect Hillary's spirit and trust her judgment. I just worry--as a Hillary-supporter--that at this point she's actually starting to sacrifice herself for a party that has not treated her with respect.

    It's obvious that Obama has been the DNC's choice since the primaries began. It's also obvious that the DNC has no interest in polling data that suggests their preferred nominee has a serious electability problem. Hillary has stayed in this race to win, but the winning depended on convincing the DNC that it would be riskier to run Obama than to run her.

    The evidence, to me, is clear: Hillary does have a broader coalition. I don't think the DNC care about winning, however. They're running Obama to boost their "brand" with young people and to lose to the GOP rather than have total responsibility for the mess Bush leaves behind. Losing is a win this year.

    So why is Hillary staying in the race? Clearly, Obama is the DNC's choice, Wright or wrong. Yet rather than rush it to a close, the SDs trickle each day. The party is deliberately prolonging the contest at this point. Why?

    Is Hillary just being a trooper and going along for the good of the party? Staying in helps Obama save some face in WV next week and gives him the opportunity to go out a winner in Oregon on the 20th. (Interesting how WV and KY won't matter to Mr. 50 State Guy.) It also helps the party to run these primaries: Democratic registrations increase like crazy as primaries approach, and state parties benefit. So I'm wondering, how much of this ending is being orchestrated by the DNC, and how much of it is Hillary going along with out of party loyalty?

    If that's the case (and I'll admit this is all wild supposition), it looks like for her trouble the Obamabots are just going to ridicule and smear her even more fiercely as someone who doesn't know when to quit. If they continue this, I guarantee that the Democratic party will be fractured beyond repair--if it isn't already--and Obama will most certainly lose in November. If she's taking hits for Obama now and his campaign and supporters keep twisting the knife, that's pretty ugly.


    I thought she might, also, BUT (5.00 / 3) (#112)
    by AnninCA on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:54:25 AM EST
    Listening to her yesterday?  Not a chance.

    LOL*  The woman truly is a pitbull.  :)

    By the end, I thought, "OK, then.....screw the headlines, screw the bashing she will take, and onto WVA!"

    She's a big girl.  She gets to play it her way.


    here is the MyDD (1.00 / 1) (#5)
    by TruthMatters on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:14:15 AM EST
    diary that talks about the new MI proposal with some Obama campaign quotes about it.



    FL is the only state you need to worry about (1.00 / 1) (#6)
    by samtaylor2 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:14:21 AM EST
    MI will be okay.  As a Detroit CITY resident, who didn't vote in the primary, as we were told it didn't matter, I have no doubt that the Democratis will win MI in the fall.  From unions, to the large number of unemployed people, to the african american vote, MI is not that big of an issue.  

    On another note, this notion that not counting the MI and FL primaries is disenfreanchment I find historically and currently insulting (think DC).  There is nothing in following the rules that even begins to pass the smell test of what disenfranchement is.


    Tell that to FL and MI (5.00 / 6) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:16:35 AM EST
    I wonder if anyone actually wants to win In November.

    I actually now question that myself (5.00 / 6) (#25)
    by andgarden on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:21:00 AM EST
    The most valuable thing I've (5.00 / 5) (#29)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:24:29 AM EST
    learned from this process is the people involved are not long-term thinkers.

    They're so fixated on beating Hillary that they aren't thinking about actually winning the election.


    Everyday (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:00:52 AM EST
    I become more convinced that the democratic party really doesn't want to win in Nov.

    You didn't vote (5.00 / 4) (#24)
    by cmugirl on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:20:50 AM EST
    and that was your choice (even though John and Monica Conyers ran radio ads imploring you to vote "uncommitted" so those delegates would be free to vote for Obama when they were seated at the convention).  I also know the Free Press and News had daily stories and it was all over the news stations in Detroit.

    You think voters in Macomb County, home of the Reagan Democrats are going to embrace Obama in record numbers?


    You didn't vote (5.00 / 5) (#34)
    by pie on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:26:49 AM EST
    so don't feel this is disenfranchisement?

    Well, I did vote.  And I do.


    Also a Detroiter (5.00 / 5) (#65)
    by sister of ye on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:39:07 AM EST
    The very fact that Obama's surrogates were vigorously campaigning for the "uncommitted" option convinced me that he intended the MI vote to count. Sorry you couldn't get yourself out to vote, but don't slander other Detroiters' intelligence.

    It was only when Clinton pulled a solid majority that we started hearing "The Roolz! The Roolz!"

    And I wouldn't count on the union vote if McCain brings up how Obama repeatedly derided unions as just another special interest group - until he started courting their support, of course.


    Huh??? (5.00 / 3) (#225)
    by michitucky on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:32:10 AM EST
    I'm a resident of Plymouth and work in the City of Detroit...I voted, as did most people I know. Only someone not engaged would forfeit their civic duty. You're off base here, it's going to take a miracle for Michigan to go Dem in the fall. We're vulnerable...Why do you think McCain spent the entire day here yesterday???

    McCain could choose Romney (MI) as VP (none / 0) (#49)
    by Josey on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:32:22 AM EST
    and Obama will not win FL.
    It's better for Obama to diss a state he can't win than lead efforts to include MI & FL and give Hillary an appearance of momentum.

    Um (none / 0) (#54)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:34:49 AM EST
    That makes no sense. The scenarios are about Clinton winning the nomination. Your interpretation simply makes no sense.

    The taller candidate (none / 0) (#107)
    by sister of ye on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:52:18 AM EST
    is a piece of election folklore that I believe is statistically true. It says that (in the final race) the taller of the two presidental candidates is always the winner. That was broken by George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004, unless you believe, as I do, that he cheated and stole both elections.

    He is terrified of two things (none / 0) (#114)
    by ineedalife on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:54:55 AM EST
    He wants to pre-empt the Rules committee meeting that will award FL and MI.

    Puerto Rico. Losing by a half million votes and 30 delegates.

    So will he go ahead with this plan if he loses OR?

    Oregon (none / 0) (#211)
    by 1jane on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:24:29 AM EST
    Obama is up by double digits.

    Hey, what a coincidence - (none / 0) (#222)
    by Anne on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:29:26 AM EST
    I have him up by double digits, too, but in my case they are actually fingers and I will leave it to you to figure out which ones they are.

    Hint: it's not my thumbs.


    Self-fulfilling prophecy (none / 0) (#115)
    by blogtopus on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:55:18 AM EST
    If Obama gets the nomination, with Hillary fighting every step of the way, and he does not count Michigan and Florida, there is no doubt he will lose the election.

    Then what? 2012. Exactly what conspiracists have accused Hillary of planning: Dump Obama, take 2012 by storm. Let the elites take their lumps for pushing a green politician into the highest race on the planet. By the time 2012 comes around, the nation will be very very ready for someone capable to take over, not some weasel campaign full of little substance more than lies and dirty tricks.

    And, despite the wailings of all the people with the 'Don't blame me, I voted for Obama' bumper stickers on their cars, Hillary will be completely blameless.

    And who knows? If his campaign can fool democrats into voting an arrogant and empty suit as their role model / leader, then maybe they can fool the rest of the nation into voting for him as well.

    Michigan and Florida Delegates Possible Solution (none / 0) (#133)
    by KeysDan on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:59:31 AM EST
    A possible consideration for  resolution of the Michigan and Florida delegate issue:  Michigan: equal division of the votes cast in the primary between Senator Clinton (on the ballot and received  half the votes) and Senator Obama (no other candidates on the ballot so credit Senator Obama with all non-Clinton specified votes).  Florida: Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama keep just the votes cast for her/him in the primary (all eight candidates were then on the ballot). Apportion the delegates in accord with the votes so assigned.   This approach seems reasonable given the circumstances in which we find ourselves; it  permits all states,  all votes and all voters to count, and allows Democrats to move ahead in the general election against McCain.

    Yes, Taller Means Having More Height (none / 0) (#135)
    by flashman on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:00:22 AM EST
    The statement attempts to make the popular vote unimportant.  He's saying basically that the vote is no more important than the candidate's height.  It's stupid, misleading political speak.

    You're right... arrogance is the problem with him. (none / 0) (#177)
    by jeffhas on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:14:00 AM EST

    Dem primaries (none / 0) (#199)
    by abiodun on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:20:37 AM EST
    Disclosure-I voted for Clinton in my state's primary in VA.
    Let's be honest:
    FL and MI, the rules were set before the start of the process, so why change the rules now.
    The "racial tone" of the campaign has been discouraging. HRC's answer yesterday clssifying "hard-working americans" as whites confirms this.
    There is no proof that the voters of either candidate will not vote for the nominee in the general. You are either a progressive or you are not.
    Has any democratic presidential candidate ever won the so-called "white working-class vote"?
    For me? The judicial appointments are too important to let McCain get elected. I will work, contribute and vote for whoever the Dem nominee is.

    I'm not a "progressive" (5.00 / 2) (#207)
    by northeast73 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:22:26 AM EST
    ...I am a moderate Democrat who values experience and integrity as much as a value position on the issues.

    Obama lacks experience and integrity and his supporters and the media disgust me.

    Need more?


    Can Someone Explain.... (none / 0) (#201)
    by northeast73 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:20:49 AM EST
    ....how on May 20th Obama will have hit the magic number, even if it is 2025??

    If he gets a lot of SDs publicly declared (none / 0) (#216)
    by ruffian on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:26:46 AM EST
    he could do it.

    Rules/laws matter (none / 0) (#204)
    by sister of ye on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:21:16 AM EST
    But what if they're bad rules or laws? Remember, slavery was legal. Jim Crow was legal. Anti-miscegenation laws were legal. Technically Martin Luther King was a criminal who got thrown into jail.

    All "true." Yet who but the biggest nutcases would defend any of the above legalities? Martin Luther King is rightly a hero for defying "the law" and working to bring the law into line with justice.

    Logic? Heh.... (none / 0) (#218)
    by oldpro on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:27:09 AM EST
    No logic in a power play.

    This is the equivalent of chestbeating in those nature documentaries starring Jane Goodall.

    IMHO (none / 0) (#234)
    by kmblue on Thu May 08, 2008 at 02:05:17 PM EST
    Declaring victory will be a mistake.

    It's just my opinion, but it's another example
    of Obama's tone-deafness.
    When he spoke at the SF meeting, and was trying to justify his lack of appeal to working class folk, I had the impression he was looking at those folk through a high-powered microscope.
    This is his problem.
    Bill Clinton has always been the best at making voters feel that he understood them and their problems.  
    Hillary, not so much, but she has learned how through disciplined effort.
    Obama can wow a crowd, but he can't touch their hearts.
    McCain has that war hero, "I'll keep you safe" thing going for him.
    I'm sorry to say I think Obama will lose the GE.

    MI FL (none / 0) (#235)
    by Rashomon66 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 02:17:35 PM EST
    Everybody knew they would not count in late 2007. There was no fight then to get them counted. There is only fight now because Hillary is behind. However, even with them, she won't win unless the Super Delegates feel that her 'victories' there matter. If they don't think they matter then they don't.
    And, believe me, there is not a super delegate out there who does not know about MI and FL - so they are taking them into account in some manner.

    That said, I would like Obama to wait until Hillary pulls out and endorses him.