home

The Delegate Math; Clinton Nixing MI Proposal?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:36:16 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg This!! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

It looks less definitive than I thought it would. Here is Chris Bowers' analysis:

[W]ith Florida seated as is, Clinton trails by 95 delegates when the Michigan Party's plan is enacted. Further, since Edwards has declined to make an endorsement, his 32 delegates are now effectively uncommitted superdelegates. So, this means that the best case-scenario for Clinton right now is that she trails by 95 delegates with 550.5 delegates remaining. So, even in Clitnon's best case scenario, Obama only needs 228 of the remaining 550.5 delegates, or 41.4%, to win the nomination.

Obama still needs 41.4% of the remaining delegates with this FL/MI plan? I thought the math was worse than that for Clinton.

Clinton Nixing MI Proposal? See below.

Update [2008-5-8 14:50:35 by Big Tent Democrat]: Greg Sargent reports this reaction from the Clinton campaign on the MI proposal:

This proposal does not honor the 600,000 votes that were cast in Michigan's January primary. Those votes must be counted.

Bad play by the Clinton campaign. I would have argued that it does honor and RECOGNIZE the 600,000 votes, at least in part, and thank the Obama campaign for accepting that Michigan must count.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only.

Comment closed.

< Hillary, Obama and the Campaign Debt Factor | Hoyer Still Desperate To Capitulate On Telco Immunity >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    The Delegate Math; Clinton Nixing MI Proposal? | 235 comments (235 topical)
    You're not the only one. (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by ahazydelirium on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:40:33 PM EST
    Obama still needs 41.4% of the remaining delegates with this FL/MI plan? I thought the math was worse than that for Clinton.

    The New York Times today would have you believe it is.

    You are very right. (5.00 / 3) (#80)
    by IzikLA on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:09:56 PM EST
    Everyone would have us believe that it is impossible for her.  That is what got us into this situation.  The simple fact that Obama's campaign and the entire mainstream media jumped on the general narrative that Clinton couldn't win and was somehow therefore 'tearing apart the party' and would 'do anything to win'.  If you don't logically think that that irreparably harmed her and her campaign and their chances, I don't know how to argue with anyone.

    [ Parent ]
    BTD's media darling theory (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by oculus on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:11:30 PM EST
    is playing out right before our eyes.

    [ Parent ]
    Nah (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by BDB on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:13:24 PM EST
    This is Clinton hatred, not Obama love.  

    [ Parent ]
    This is Obama (none / 0) (#137)
    by cannondaddy on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:23:10 PM EST
    love.

    [ Parent ]
    The last paragraph sums it up. (none / 0) (#159)
    by oculus on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:31:06 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Pelosi: (none / 0) (#177)
    by reynwrap582 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:38:30 PM EST
    "Me, I like combat," Pelosi said. "The best training for campaigning is campaigning."

    That's just about the smartest thing I've heard her say.  Hillary has helped Obama by keeping the fight going, whether he or the pundits realize it or not.

    [ Parent ]

    The irony of all this--it's so delicious really-- (5.00 / 6) (#106)
    by ahazydelirium on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:15:19 PM EST
    is that the media-critiquing blogosphere that is so ruthlessly pushing Obama is totally dependent on that same MSM to bolster and perpetuate the myth of Obama's victory.

    [ Parent ]
    You noticed. Me too. (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by oculus on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:16:24 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I think Obama will get his delegates (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by DCDemocrat on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:42:23 PM EST
    There has been no magic this year.  Every state has proven predictable.  Based on this, we know that Hillary will crush Obama in West Virginia, Kentucky, and Puerto Rico, and Obama will easily defeat Hillary in Oregon, Montana, and South Dakota.  I think Obama will get his 41 percent.  

    Maybe (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by litigatormom on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:45:18 PM EST
    Maybe not.

    But this would at least have the semblance of fairness to the VOTERS in MI and FLA.  Which is critical if either candidate is to beat McCain in the fall.

    [ Parent ]

    I think so (5.00 / 4) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:45:54 PM EST
    But it certainly does argue for allowing folks to vote it seems to me.

    I thought it was over mathematically but this points to it not be quite decided just yet.

    I was surprised to be honest with you.

    [ Parent ]

    See my comment below (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by andgarden on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:48:18 PM EST
    The Supers will not only decide this nomination, Edward's delegates even potentially could.

    [ Parent ]
    You know what? (5.00 / 5) (#14)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:50:42 PM EST
    If the delegates are already given out and it ends up that way then, yes, at least Obama won fair and square. I can accept that. What I can't accept is the way Obama's trying to do it right now, by claiming victory without MI and FL.

    BTD, at least this explains why Obama doesn't want the delegates from MI and FL released. It's conceivable that Hillary could win the nomination. Perhaps it also explains why Obama consistently wants her to drop out.

    [ Parent ]

    I think it's important (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by DCDemocrat on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:08:16 PM EST
    that the comment I wrote be read in light of the fact that I am convinced Obama will lose in the fall and that I think Hillary's defeat is a national disaster.

    [ Parent ]
    Well, I'm happy about one thing (5.00 / 1) (#214)
    by Eleanor A on Thu May 08, 2008 at 02:02:31 PM EST
    I think Hill's not about to drop out, if she's fighting this hard for ten or so more delegates.  And not to let Obama have Edwards' delegates.

    GO HILLARY!

    [ Parent ]

    Obama has decided not (5.00 / 3) (#135)
    by NO2WONDERBOY on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:23:07 PM EST
    to campaign in West Virginia, according to latest news on MSNBC. This shows his "commitment to represent and be the president of ALL Americans"? Also, he believes he has the nomination sewn up, that may be, so he's not putting out any effort to contact West Virginians, those gun-totting, religious clinging white poor. In his mind HE DOESN"T NEED THEM, SO HE WON'T BOTHER! HOW ARROGANT CAN YOU GET!

    [ Parent ]
    Gosh (5.00 / 3) (#178)
    by Steve M on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:39:39 PM EST
    He should just take his name off the ballot.  That way it will become a Soviet-style election that would be a travesty to count.

    [ Parent ]
    Coward (5.00 / 5) (#186)
    by DJ on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:44:14 PM EST
    he's shown it time and time again.

    [ Parent ]
    This is why (5.00 / 8) (#194)
    by madamab on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:50:29 PM EST
    he won't get HRC's supporters. Insulting and dismissing them is political suicide, yet he and his surrogates do it constantly.

    No amount of Obamans coming on TalkLeft and berating people about Unity will change the fact that Obama's own behavior has guaranteed he won't win the GE.

    Should Obama be the nominee, they will be the bitter ones in November.

    [ Parent ]

    As Clinton pointed out this morning (4.57 / 7) (#157)
    by litigatormom on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:30:31 PM EST
    No Democrat has been elected president since the early part of the last century without winning West Virginia.

    So naturally, WVA gets dissed.  Why?

    Ego protection, of course. Obama knows that even though he has already "won," he is going to lose in WVA.  He needs to be able to say it's not a fair victory because he didn't campaign there.

    The same way he took his name off the MI ballot and then said that vote wasn't fair.

    What leadership, Barack.  When you're not winning, you pick up your marbles and go home.

    [ Parent ]

    A wee story. (5.00 / 3) (#193)
    by liminal on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:49:27 PM EST
    I may have told this elsewhere, but in Wayne County two weeks ago, Nick Joe Rahall, popular local Congresscritter who gets reelected with umptynine percent of the local vote and has an "Intermodal Transportation Center" (a.k.a. a parking garage) bearing his very own name in a popular downtown development in my fair city (which has, to be fair, been very good for the city), had to eat dinner by himself as a party affair because no one there would sit with him over his endorsement.  

    If Senator Obama really has chosen to completely write off WVa and not to campaign here just when he has this nearly all sewn up, it will be the best thing that ever happened to the Republican party in the state.  

    I know he won't win here.  I know it would be difficult for him to campaign here.  I don't expect him to make a Kennedy-style appeal to the state, staking his nomination on it, because that would be foolish.  Still, if he had real political courage, he would show up and press the flesh.  He would make his case to Democrats, even those supporting Senator Clinton, not just for now, but for the fall and going forward into the future. If he's not willing to work to make that case, he's not the man his supporters think he is.

    [ Parent ]

    His arguments are twisting back on themselves ... (5.00 / 2) (#200)
    by Ellie on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:53:56 PM EST
    As a strategy he took his voluntarily took his name off the MI ballot (and parleyed that into wins elsewhere, plus used to smear HRC as illegitimate and "doing anything she needed to win".) He can't rationally claim that those votes shouldn't count if he also doesn't campaign in other states that he loses. Is he going to step forward after the fact and try to get THOSE votes too?

    His other campaign lapses and poor choices that worked out in HRC's favor -- such as her focusing and reaching out to voters -- were spun as her votership being "wrong" somehow, or that she was "wrong" in wooing them.

    Spin 1: The voters she got were too racist / poorly informed / old / dumb / irrelevant blah blah blah for the taste of the pro-O media or Oboiz. (SAP: We hate her, they must be hateful too.)

    Spin 2: She mysteriously caused them not to support Obama, or he didn't really try to win them; BO supporters always begin on the premise that 100% of the votes naturally belong to him and are being taken unfairly from him -- except the ones he doesn't want or didn't try to get.

    This is purely ex rectum but in my defense, there's only so much of the media and Oboiz coverage that I can stand. A handy "Media Matters" style compilation of Obama Worship Fallacies would be great and if I weren't under a hard deadline, I'd start one.

    [ Parent ]

    does he get a book deal if he loses big? (none / 0) (#183)
    by Salo on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:41:38 PM EST
    it's all messed up

    [ Parent ]
    Depends entirely on the next 3 states (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by andgarden on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:45:19 PM EST
    The reason Obama is hedging his bets is because, in KY and WV, Hillary could come as close to taking all of the delegates as he did in his best districts. She won't break 85%, but she could easily break 75%, and that's enough to get a very large majority. WV and KY combined have a fair number of delegates.

    KY especially (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Faust on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:57:39 PM EST
    If she scores 70% there she could pick up over 20 delegates.

    Even so this remains a super d race at this point (barring unforseen scandals).

    What criteria can they (supers) be convinced to use? That's what this race comes down to now.

    [ Parent ]

    Clinton sd. this morning if she (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by oculus on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:00:51 PM EST
    is the nominee, African Americans will vote for her.  Of course, we all know all Clinton's voters will support Obama, so what's the big deal?

    [ Parent ]
    Clinton (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by Emma on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:14:26 PM EST
    has been very careful to keep courting the Black community, even if she knew she couldn't win them.  And Bill will do a Black church redemption tour in support of her candidacy and take his lumps (deserved or not according to one's opinion).  This MAY go a long way to bringing Black voters back to Clinton for the GE.

    I don't know, and I'm not saying for sure, but I think this is a good example of Clinton's always planning for the GE, not just for the nomination. I think she's never forgotten or discounted Black voters, and I think that will pay off if she's the nominee. The same is not true of Obama with elders, women, and Latinos, to name a few.  

    Also, Brazile may become a millstone around his neck for her recent comments, at least with the Super Ds.  Who wants to piss off Latinos?  It's just ... stupid.  Everybody knows Brazile is in the tank for Obama.  Will he have to reject and denounce her?

    [ Parent ]

    Great idea. Another Speech, this time (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by oculus on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:18:29 PM EST
    distancing himself from Brazille.

    [ Parent ]
    Why, he could no more distance himself (5.00 / 3) (#162)
    by litigatormom on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:32:20 PM EST
    from Donna than he could his own family....until it becomes expedient for him to do so. See, e.g., Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

    [ Parent ]
    urk (none / 0) (#104)
    by Emma on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:15:12 PM EST
    I meant she even if she couldn't win them in the primaries.

    [ Parent ]
    I won't vote for Obama.... (none / 0) (#125)
    by josephm on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:19:48 PM EST
    Speaking for myself, I voted Hillary in the Primary and will vote for her again in the General Election if she is the nominee. However, I won't vote Obama in the General Election. Obama is far too liberal to me. At some point, I even feel like he is an extremist. I also feel that he is ELITIST and have no understanding of how we view Religion vs. Economy. So, I will vote McCain if Obama is the nominee. McCain is close enough to Hillary. They both are liberal-republican and conservative democrat. Don't give me speech about 100 years in Iraq. It is taken out of context. I think Hillary can do well for the economy, but I do not believe Obama can turn the economy around. Sorry. Hillary or McCain for me.

    [ Parent ]
    Please reconsider. SCOTUS nominations (none / 0) (#128)
    by oculus on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:20:53 PM EST
    are crucial.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm from Miami and Obama will not get my vote. (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by Mark Woods on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:34:27 PM EST
    Unless he is one half of ticket with Clinton, otherwise, no way. And I won't stay home, because we need to elect down-ticket Democratic House members and also to defeat the anti-gay marriage amendment.

    But I will not vote for Obama without Clinton, not after what he has done to FL and not after his Advocate Magazine interview -- the one where he told gay people to 'Wait' and not to push for equality.

    Personally, I think gay people have a better chance with McCain than Obama, and that's why the Evangelicals hate McCain - he doesn't hate us enough to please their angry God.

    Clinton on the other hand pushes for our FL votes and has marched in gay pride parades - Go Hillary (I'm making a donation to HillaryClinton.com as we speak in protest to Obama's arrogance --sheesh!).

    [ Parent ]

    A double-whammy. You state (none / 0) (#174)
    by oculus on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:36:56 PM EST
    your position forthrightly.  I respect that.

    [ Parent ]
    Florida voter too (none / 0) (#224)
    by Step Beyond on Thu May 08, 2008 at 02:07:27 PM EST
    I'm right there with you voting against that stupid anti-gay marriage amendment.

    [ Parent ]
    A response to this argument (none / 0) (#209)
    by Rhouse on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:58:24 PM EST
    can be found over at Corrente by BDBlue:
    http://www.correntewire.com/the_supreme_court_argument_for_obama_or_how_the_democrats_are_already_pl anning_to_surrender_to_mccain
    The argument isn't that strong.

    [ Parent ]
    Clinton could gain (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by waldenpond on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:58:51 PM EST
    about 33 delegates in the remaining contests if she could raise her spread to 65/35 and hold Obama to his projections of OR 5; SD 15/ MT 11.

    Possible:
    W Va 65/35 = 18/10
    OR 48/53 = 25/27
    KY 65/35 = 33/18
    PR 65/35 36/19
    SD 43/58 = 6/9
    MT 45/46 = 7/9


    [ Parent ]

    I really do not fathom why Obama (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by oculus on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:01:48 PM EST
    is the strong winner of OR.  

    [ Parent ]
    Look for KY and WV (none / 0) (#45)
    by andgarden on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:00:14 PM EST
    to be closer to 75/25.

    [ Parent ]
    Fifty points (none / 0) (#144)
    by cannondaddy on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:25:28 PM EST
    Your kool aid must be even better than what I've been getting.

    [ Parent ]
    Look at the counties (none / 0) (#147)
    by andgarden on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:27:21 PM EST
    that surround the states. It's very possible.

    [ Parent ]
    And Clinton will win NC (none / 0) (#164)
    by jimotto on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:33:54 PM EST
    Believe it or not, there are urban areas of WV that are not the equivalent of the rural redneck counties of VA, PA and OH.  Obama will probably not break 40% in WV, but he won't go below 30.

    [ Parent ]
    People who live in rural areas don't (none / 0) (#218)
    by Joan in VA on Thu May 08, 2008 at 02:04:05 PM EST
    appreciate being called rednecks. Sorta offensive and elitist.

    [ Parent ]
    I was being conservative (none / 0) (#145)
    by waldenpond on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:26:18 PM EST
    if she does that and shaves even 1 pt off of OR/SD/MT she can gain about 50.

    [ Parent ]
    and he's tired of campaigning, he referred (none / 0) (#83)
    by thereyougo on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:11:18 PM EST
    to it as the Bataan march

    [ Parent ]
    Bataan death march and "bored." (none / 0) (#89)
    by oculus on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:12:24 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Another good soundbite for McCain (5.00 / 2) (#119)
    by cmugirl on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:18:39 PM EST
    Let's compare running in a primary to being a POW.  Hmmm, how do you think McCain could use this, you know, being a former POW in another war?

    "Barack Obama said campaigning in a long primary was like being a POW on the Bataan Death March.  He also said he was bored.  John McCain WAS a POW in Vietnam for 6 years. He knows what it means to be tough. He'll stand up to terrorists and special interests.  Will Barack Obama think being President is too hard? Will he be bored?

    Vote John McCain."

    voice over"I'm John McCain and I approved this message.

    [ Parent ]

    Oh, please. Remember, we must not give (none / 0) (#126)
    by oculus on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:19:50 PM EST
    the GOP any ideas.

    [ Parent ]
    Ideas for commercials (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by DJ on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:22:04 PM EST
    just roll out of Obama's mouth, and his handlers.  They won't have to work too hard.

    [ Parent ]
    It will be so easy to beat him (none / 0) (#151)
    by madamab on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:27:56 PM EST
    that McCain will be able to do it without saying a word.

    The McCainstream media will do it all for him.

    [ Parent ]

    Ha! that is good. n/t (none / 0) (#130)
    by DJ on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:21:19 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    This (none / 0) (#148)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:27:29 PM EST
    is exactly the thing I'm afraid will happen also will be very effective in the g.e.

    [ Parent ]
    That's Media Mania (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by flashman on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:45:49 PM EST
    convincing us that Clinton was mathematically finsihed.  I thought she has a very good chance of capturing enough SD's before Tuesday.  Now, I'm not too sure.

    Obama campaigned in Florida (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Ricey on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:50:28 PM EST
    He didn't mean to, but I remember seeing an article and photo from an online Tampa news org that after a fundraiser he stepped across the street and gave a press conference. Not sure, but this technically (since he likes to follow the rules) prevents him from getting any FL delegates.

    and his commercials played there too. n/t (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by DJ on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:51:29 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Here's the article (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by catfish on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:11:34 PM EST
    From local FL station:
    By WILLIAM MARCH and ELAINE SILVESTRINI The Tampa Tribune

    Published: September 30, 2007

    TAMPA - Barack Obama hinted during a Tampa fundraiser Sunday that if he's the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, he'll seat a Florida delegation at the party's national convention, despite national party sanctions prohibiting it.

    Obama also appeared to violate a pledge he and the other leading candidates took by holding a brief news conference outside the fundraiser. That was less than a day after the pledge took effect Saturday, and Obama is the first Democratic presidential candidate to visit Florida since then.



    [ Parent ]
    wonderful! (5.00 / 2) (#116)
    by DJ on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:18:02 PM EST
    thanks.  shows the hypocrite that he is.  I think that is what bothers  me the most about him.  He is hypocritical about things that really matter.  
    New kind of politics -kick everyone off ballot, play dirty, race card
    Green Energy - but don't vote for it
    Great Legislator - as long as someone else does the work on it
    Uniter - no quite a divider
    New Ideas - but no actual plans
    Give voice to people --really?
    and no one gets it.

    [ Parent ]
    This needs to be explored (none / 0) (#227)
    by NO2WONDERBOY on Thu May 08, 2008 at 02:08:20 PM EST
    in more depth, but remember, if the media doesn't pick it up (acknowledge)then it didn't happen. Nevertheless, we must press on.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama campaigned in Florida (none / 0) (#228)
    by delacarpa on Thu May 08, 2008 at 02:08:34 PM EST
    For over 2 weeks I saw his Cnn spot that beamed into my house maybe 3 times a day and so did the DMC give him the OK to do this. Does anyone know about this?

    [ Parent ]
    Looks like everyone is just going to whack the (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:50:50 PM EST
    hell out of each other till the convention.  Obama can go ahead and declare victory on May 20 but he'd better have the delegates to do it or it ain't happening, Clinton will just call him a liar and carry on.

    Kerry is on MSNBC right now (5.00 / 5) (#27)
    by DandyTIger on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:56:06 PM EST
    saying how Obama is going to win all these red states he won in the primaries, and that's how he's going to win the general. Oh, and he said the only reason he lost Ohio was because of campaign strategy, not because of Obama himself or any baggage he has. Can you say delusional?

    I have lost a lot of respect for him. n/t (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by DJ on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:57:26 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Honestly (none / 0) (#55)
    by AnninCA on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:03:17 PM EST
    Kerry is about like I always thought Kerry was.

    I was a most reluctant Dem. that year.  :)

    I never got the guy.  I trust I just don't even find the page he's on.  Never will.

    [ Parent ]

    But he's part of the New America n/t (none / 0) (#68)
    by DJ on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:06:52 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    DJ....... (none / 0) (#170)
    by AnninCA on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:35:12 PM EST
    if Kerry is anything "new," then I'm so retro, I'm back in style.

    This guy is one dead soul.

    I'm sorry.  Everything about Kerry reeks of insider politics and Old, Old Democrat.

    That's the true irony of this season.

    She's the "insider"......except we all know that's not true.

    He's the candidate of "change," except every proposal is so blah and old.

    She's the "rich" one, except she's the real populist.

    He's the "poor AA guy," except he's really an elitist.

    Lordy.

    We have all been spinned right out of even the spin zone.

    None of the narratives hold water!

    [ Parent ]

    Ann (none / 0) (#195)
    by DJ on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:51:48 PM EST
    but don't you understand?  
    Kerry gets invited to  be part of New America because of his elite, educated, latte drinking self.  I don't get an invitation to New America because I am low info and of course a woman.

    [ Parent ]
    I saw the Kerry endorsement speech (none / 0) (#152)
    by cannondaddy on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:28:09 PM EST
    live in Charleston. It was about twice as long as it needed to be.  By the end I was trying to swallow my own tongue.

    [ Parent ]
    Kerry (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by DJ on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:57:58 PM EST
    did you just hear the "old America" vs "new America" meme?

    [ Parent ]
    yea, stunning (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by DandyTIger on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:00:12 PM EST
    And before that, the only one making sense on their panel was Buchanan. What is this world coming to?

    [ Parent ]
    I know! (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by DJ on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:06:08 PM EST
    I listen more to Buchanan and Fox!  I can't believe it.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm Guessing the Older White Guy (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by BDB on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:00:16 PM EST
    put himself in New America.

    This isn't about November, this is about the old Democratic power structure asserting itself to stay relevant.  Obama's just their cover.  He looks like new America, but his coalition looks like a McGovern rally.

    [ Parent ]

    Exactly!!!! (5.00 / 3) (#82)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:10:21 PM EST
    It is about the old power structure. Well, they'll be done after Nov if Obama's the nominee. No one will EVER listen to them again after pushing loser after loser on the party.

    [ Parent ]
    Maybe (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:12:12 PM EST
    Nov will be the other bookend. 40 years in the presidential wilderness will be over in 2012.

    [ Parent ]
    because he's educated and high income (none / 0) (#140)
    by DJ on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:24:08 PM EST
    he gets to join the "New America"

    [ Parent ]
    Every time I start to get some (5.00 / 4) (#59)
    by bjorn on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:04:21 PM EST
    closure and come to terms with voting for BO in the fall, someone like Kerry comes out and says something stupid.  ARGHHH!  Shut up, just Shut up pompous people and prominent but stupid Obama supporters or BO will lose for sure.

    [ Parent ]
    I can't (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:08:14 PM EST
    believe Kerry is this stupid. All I can say is the more the Obama campaign surrogates speak, the more I'm sure he'll lose in Nov. Clueless is an understatement.

    [ Parent ]
    He's not. (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by madamab on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:14:46 PM EST
    He's power-hungry and he thinks that Obama is the way to get that power.

    I just think this is the simplest explanation for the "Kool-Aid effect" among people who should know better.

    As for Jimmy Carter, I don't get him at all on this issue. But I do disagree with him sometimes despite my respect for his ideals and record.

    [ Parent ]

    well duh, he outspent her 3:1 what (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by thereyougo on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:13:56 PM EST
    does he mean because of strategy? The Botox has gone to his brain.

    [ Parent ]
    AND! (5.00 / 3) (#99)
    by flashman on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:14:16 PM EST
    He credited Limbaugh with Hillary's win in IN.  Gawd, I can't believe I ever supported this twit.

    [ Parent ]
    I can't believe... (none / 0) (#233)
    by AX10 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 02:14:26 PM EST
    I waste time to defend Kerry.

    [ Parent ]
    Kerry also saw no problem... (none / 0) (#231)
    by AX10 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 02:12:28 PM EST
    waiting 3 weeks to respond to the swiftboaters.
    Kerry is delusional and inept.

    [ Parent ]
    He Doesn't Have This Sown Up (5.00 / 9) (#29)
    by BDB on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:57:01 PM EST
    That's the reason for the memo denigrating the popular vote. That's the resaon for declaring victory.  He's trying to create his own reality.  The Obama campaign at its Rovian finest.  I wonder if there will be a Mission Accomplished sign behind him for his speech on May 20th?

    BTW, where are those 50 SDs that Obama had in his pocket that were going to come out and end this thing.

    Donate to Clinton.  I thought she was out of it, but thanks to Obama, I know that's not true.  If she were out of it, he could wait.

    Despite the optimism. (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by kcarab on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:58:28 PM EST
    Uh perhaps people should read the full article, especially the conclusion:

    "Clinton's best-case scenario still overwhelmingly favors Obama. So yes, the outcome of the nomination campaign is now a foregone conclusion.

    Update: Yes, Florida probably won't be seated as is, and I probably should not have written that it would be. Still, that is why this is Clinton's best-case scenario. And it ain't very good. "

    You are fighting the last war (5.00 / 4) (#79)
    by Manuel on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:09:43 PM EST
    FL should be seated as is because it will help unify the party and is the right thing to do for the November elecyion.

    [ Parent ]
    you see, (none / 0) (#41)
    by kcarab on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:59:30 PM EST
    This best case-scenario depicts the situation with Florida being seated as it is, WHICH IT WON'T.

    [ Parent ]
    Interestingly (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:17:02 PM EST
    The I deal makes that much more likely frankly.

    Why the deal on MI (with full seating) and not on FL? there is no logical answer.

    FL will be seated as is.

    [ Parent ]

    Then it WONT (none / 0) (#229)
    by Leisa on Thu May 08, 2008 at 02:09:16 PM EST
    be legit.

    Stinky is what it will be.  

    [ Parent ]

    or perhaps (none / 0) (#57)
    by kcarab on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:03:43 PM EST
    even the first sentence?

    "I know we are supposed to move on from the nomination campaign at this point, but in case there was any lingering doubt Clinton could still win the nomination, the new deal proposed from the Michigan Democratic Party should be an end to it."

    [ Parent ]

    Um (none / 0) (#108)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:15:44 PM EST
    Chris' opinions on these types of things are not that important to me frankly.

    I like his numbers work though.

    [ Parent ]

    I await his retraction (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by andgarden on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:16:48 PM EST
    on Heath Shuler. . . heh.

    [ Parent ]
    Wow.. call a KoolAid ambulance!! (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by MarkL on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:07:24 PM EST
    Listen to what Jimmy Carter sez:

    The former president tells Jay Leno Wednesday night that the two states' delegations should not be seated at August's convention because they "disqualified themselves."
    "It would be a catastrophe for the party." (Via Halperin)
    heh (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:14:52 PM EST
    Jimmy Carter giving political advice. That's funny.

    [ Parent ]
    George McGovern is a new strategic hero (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by andgarden on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:15:49 PM EST
    so, you know, this stuff happens.

    [ Parent ]
    Gary Hart too. Where has he (none / 0) (#202)
    by oculus on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:55:37 PM EST
    been all these years?

    [ Parent ]
    At least (none / 0) (#205)
    by Step Beyond on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:56:52 PM EST
    The Dem party seems determined to make it as easy as possible for me to not vote for them in November. Thanks Dems!

    [ Parent ]
    Obama better step aside or you won't vote? (none / 0) (#211)
    by digdugboy on Thu May 08, 2008 at 02:00:10 PM EST
    Is that the bargain you're offering?
    [tagline censored]
    [ Parent ]
    Where did I say that? (none / 0) (#220)
    by Step Beyond on Thu May 08, 2008 at 02:05:16 PM EST
    Thats a shame that you are so wrapped around your opinion that you just make up things that other people never said.

    My offer, if you actually care to know, is that without a primary vote NO Dem candidate gets my vote. And I'm not talking about some after the fact, sitting of delegates or some formulaic division of delegates. I'm talking about sitting the delegates based on a vote before the nominee is decided.

    [ Parent ]

    coronation (5.00 / 3) (#76)
    by DandyTIger on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:08:27 PM EST
    If this is a coronation by not counting FL & MI, or by ending the statistically tied race too soon, then it will cost democrats in november. The only way for Obama to have a chance in november is to bring in FL and MI now. Then to let the race play out. And then win with some legitimacy. Otherwise it will feel unfair.

    The change we need in america, is not a change to less democracy.

    how can you guys (none / 0) (#81)
    by CanadianDem on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:10:01 PM EST
    get any less after Bushco, be realistic

    [ Parent ]
    We can nominate a sure loser (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by madamab on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:15:48 PM EST
    like Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    Not a campaign (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by flashman on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:17:26 PM EST
    A "victory party" isn't a campaign event.

    but (none / 0) (#139)
    by kcarab on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:24:03 PM EST
    What about the fundraisers?

    And if you say those don't break the rules then Obama's airing of a national ad doesn't either because it was OK'ed by the DNC.

    [ Parent ]

    Yes (5.00 / 2) (#160)
    by AnninCA on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:31:36 PM EST
    You got it.  Fundraisers were OK.

    :)

    Ads were not.  They let him slide.  The underdog factor there.

    But nonetheless, even at this late date, who cares?

    He's that unattractive in FL.

    He couldn't buy a victory there if he had gazilloion buckos.

    I don't even care, personally, that he doesn't seat them.  I hope he doesn't.

    He'll then excuse himself from the truth of the matter.

    There's not enough AA voters in FL to swing it.

    Southern though it may be......

    He can't pull off an AA voter bloc vote thre.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama held a FL impromptu press conference (5.00 / 2) (#167)
    by fiver2 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:34:41 PM EST
    as well as fundraisers.  It was the day after the pledge not to campaign went into effect.  When he was informed he had broken the rules, he expressed ignorance.

    [ Parent ]
    Fundraisers were specifically allowed (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by lookoverthere on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:43:16 PM EST
    in the pledge. Campaign was specifically disallowed.

    It's the press conference after the fundraiser and the hint that he would seat the delegations as presumptive nominee where there's a problem. That's campaigning.

    Whoopsie.


    [ Parent ]

    Doesn't the penalty (none / 0) (#238)
    by 0 politico on Thu May 08, 2008 at 02:34:37 PM EST
    under DNC rules (Not Brazile's dictum) mandate that half the state's delegates be seated as per the rpimary results, except for BO's.  Because he violated the "rules", he cannot pick up delegates from FL.

    That must be why FL (and MI) can't be counted until after he is ordaned.  We don't want something like aherence to the "rules" to get in the way of the nomination.

    [ Parent ]

    Fundraising (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by cmugirl on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:19:27 PM EST
    was allowed under the rules.  They all had fundraisers in Michigan too,

    Good (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:40:00 PM EST
    it's stupid to give her delegates to the guy who decided not to run in the state.

    Plus: Clinton doesn't need WIN on first ballot (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by Exeter on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:52:46 PM EST
    She only needs to block Obama on the first ballot, b/c on the second ballot pledged delegates can vote for whomever they want, even if they were originally pledged to Obama. Therefore, she only needs enough to block Obama on the first ballot, which is much easier math for her.

    You really are an optimist. (none / 0) (#206)
    by oculus on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:57:07 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Every deal Obama (5.00 / 1) (#212)
    by DCDemocrat on Thu May 08, 2008 at 02:01:29 PM EST
    approves gives him delegates he has not earned.  

    Yes, that's true (5.00 / 1) (#221)
    by Emma on Thu May 08, 2008 at 02:05:49 PM EST
    Levin wants to give away my vote?  Fine.  I'll help him.  I'm voting for his opponent in the fall.  Not that it will matter, but sh*t, he's ticking me off.

    [ Parent ]
    Clinton should reject the plan (5.00 / 2) (#216)
    by Exeter on Thu May 08, 2008 at 02:03:43 PM EST
    At this point, her best bet is to seat the Michigan Delegation with her 70 delegates and letting the remaining 58 delegates be seated as uncommitted and letting them vote whomever the want. (She has the votes on the committee to make this happen.) Plus, she can ensure the super delegates will be seated and vote for whomever they want-- again, Clinton has the advantage is this area as well.

    she prosed seating it as is (none / 0) (#226)
    by TruthMatters on Thu May 08, 2008 at 02:07:53 PM EST
    the State Rejected it and responded with this.

    so it seems that the State of Mi is also against as is seating.

    [ Parent ]

    IMO by nixing the MI (5.00 / 1) (#230)
    by Same As It Ever Was on Thu May 08, 2008 at 02:10:08 PM EST
    deal, Clinton abandons any credible argument on the subject.  And without Michigan, she is indeed finished.

    Absolutely Clinton should reject the plan (5.00 / 2) (#236)
    by bridget on Thu May 08, 2008 at 02:30:39 PM EST
    The plan to hand Obama whose name was not on the ballot and whose name is not committed all the uncommitted votes or minus those THEY imagine Edwards et al own is simply outrageous. There is no reason at all to reward Obama in this fashion.

    Obama supporters must be more than thrilled to accept this plan. Except

    Hillary won Michigan and Obama wants her votes and delegates. Did I mention it is outrageous? What are the Dems thinking? Biased much. That's all.

    Hillary is now blocking (5.00 / 1) (#237)
    by leftygogo on Thu May 08, 2008 at 02:31:17 PM EST
    this attempt to seat MI.

    I guess we will have post after post on how Hillary doesn't care about MI and can't win the state in the GE.

    Right?

    I thought she was just saving face (5.00 / 1) (#240)
    by ruffian on Thu May 08, 2008 at 02:42:42 PM EST
    at this ppoint, but it looks like she really is in it to win it.  Hold out for a better deal then, Hillary. Go for it.  

    At this point it is more in Obama's interest to put the issue behind him now than it is hers. If she can drive a harder bargain on those uncommitteds, or use MI to get a better deal on FL regarding Edwards delegates, than she is doing the right thing.

    So, let me understand this proposal for Michigan. (5.00 / 3) (#241)
    by Anne on Thu May 08, 2008 at 02:49:04 PM EST
      Hillary won 55% of the vote, and Uncommitted got 40%.  Applying those percentages to the 128 delegates would result in 73 for Clinton and 55 for Uncommitted.

    This "compromise" proposes to reduce Hillary's delegates by 4, award all of the Uncommitted delegates to someone who was not even on the ballot, and increase that total by 4.

    I would reject it, too, on the basis of our not having a practice of giving votes and delegates to candidates who did not stand for election by being on the ballot.  And I would further reject it on the basis that we are not in the practice of unilaterally deciding to take delegates away from a candidate for no reason that has any legitimacy.

    Finally, manipulating the delegate count as proposed is in defiance of the actual vote.  If I lived in Michigan and had voted, I would wonder whether my vote for Hillary had effectively been canceled and given to a candidate for whom I did not vote.

    Obama rejected every single proposal that would force him to stand for election in Michigan; Hillary rejecting this proposal is not "bad," unless you think she should approve - that we all should approve - of giving in to the willful tantrums of a candidate who outmaneuvered himself and now wants to subvert the political process to his own benefit.

    Heck, using Obama's rationale, a general election where McCain was on the ballot against Uncommitted would result in a landslide victory for Obama, right?

    And you thought the Bush administration was bad for democracy...

    The rules are very flexible (5.00 / 1) (#242)
    by bridget on Thu May 08, 2008 at 02:49:52 PM EST
    they can seat none, they can seat half, they can seat whatever ....

    Plain and Simple.

    Oh, and btw. re Obama: one rule states since he campaigned in Florida - something conveniently  ignored by the DNC and the Braziles - he may not receive any votes/delegates at all. In comparison HC did nothing wrong in Florida.

    It all depends on what the powers that be wish to do in this campaign.

    Anne, I second every one of your points (5.00 / 2) (#243)
    by bridget on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:01:23 PM EST
    incl. the one about the Bush admin.

    To dream up a plan that rewards Obama and punishes Clinton just to get the nom decided in HIS favor ... it's a disgrace. I would say the same if the roles were reversed and it was HC who had the uncommitted votes.

    Reading