A Talking Points Memo: Rules provide for the Florida and Michigan delegations to be seated.
By Owl06 on April 24, 2008 at 1:19 PM in Barack Obama, DNC, Delegates, Florida, Hillary Clinton, Howard Dean, John Edwards, Michigan, MoveOn.org
Republished with the express permission of Jon Winkleman and Jeffrey H. Campagna
Senator Obama and his surrogates, including MoveOn.org, are waging a public relations battle to pressure the DNC to refuse credentials to the Michigan and Florida delegations for the Democratic National Convention.
Their message consists of misrepresentations and lies about the DNC rules concerning these states. Unfortunately most news outlets and commentators are repeating this misinformation without ever checking the Obama campaign’s claims for accuracy against the actual DNC rules.
It is critical that every one of us combat this misinformation. There has been much discussion recently about the will of the voters. We can’t accurately determine which candidate has the greatest support amongst primary voters if we disregard the preference of 1.5 million voters in Florida while giving outsize weight to the 250,000 who caucused in Iowa, and even more outsize influence to the mere 20,000 people who participated in the Democrats Abroad contest.
Senator Clinton won decisive victories in both Florida and Michigan in January and is entitled to the delegates she won from those states. In the tight race for delegates, Florida and Michigan could decide who will be the Democratic nominee for president.
Regardless of who wins the nomination, it is important that the victory be based in the rules. If the nominee’s victory is perceived to be based on false information or rules violations, the Party will be divided going into November. We can’t afford such a scenario.
Please correct all misstatements and cite the actual sections of the Rules where applicable. Also direct the person repeating the misinformation to the actual DNC Delegate Selection Rules posted online at,
akamai.net (PDF format)
In addition to forwarding these talking points to fellow Hillary supporters, send them to Obama supporters who you believe support a fair application of the rules. Point out to them that it is for the good of everyone that all understand the rules of the game. If someone remains argumentative and insists that Hillary is cheating, simply ask,
“Have you actually read the rules?”
DNC Delegate Selection Rules: Florida & Michigan
True or False?
1) The DNC Rules state that pledged delegates elected by Florida and Michigan voters must be excluded because those states scheduled primaries before February 5, 2008.
FALSE: The DNC Delegate Selection Rules explicitly give the Rules and Bylaws Committee and the Credentials Committee ultimate jurisdiction over delegate selection. These committees, each in their independent capacities, can seat the delegates from Michigan and Florida at their discretion.
2) The mandatory penalty for a state holding a primary before February 5, 2008 is exclusion of that state’s delegates from the Democratic National Convention.
FALSE: The mandatory penalty is exclusion of one half of the offending state’s pledged and alternate delegates. Unless otherwise provided, the other half of that state’s pledged and alternate delegates will be seated at the convention.
3) Any attempt to seat 100% of the pledged or unpledged delegates of Florida and Michigan at this point is “changing the rules.”
FALSE: The DNC Rules explicitly contemplate that excluded delegates will eventually be seated at the Convention. For states in violation of the timing rules, the DNC Delegate Selection Rules provide remedies to reinstate all of their delegates, both pledged and unpledged.
4) Florida is not entitled to reinstatement of its delegates because the Democrats in the Florida State Legislature did not make efforts to keep the state’s primary in compliance with DNC Rules.
FALSE: Evidence that that a Republican majority in the state legislature set the primary date in violation of the DNC timing rules in spite of efforts by the state’s Democratic legislators to keep the primary in compliance is grounds for appealing a DNC decision to strip a state of its delegates.
Though Florida has a 2:1 Republican legislative majority, the DNC Rules & Bylaws Committee ruled that the Democratic minority did not make sufficient efforts to keep the primary date in compliance with DNC Rules. The Florida State Party disputes this factual finding. The State Party argues that the Democrats in the legislature were robbed of meaningful power to stop the Republican effort to set an early primary date because Republicans drafted the controlling legislation and packed it with other unrelated issues which the Democrats in the legislature felt they could not in good conscience oppose.
5) The DNC Rules & Bylaws Committee has taken action and is unable to change the sanctions imposed on Florida and Michigan.
FALSE: The Rules and Bylaws Committee has the power to lift any and all automatic sanctions along with the power to impose and modify additional sanctions. The Rules and Bylaws committee also has the power to create its own committee to create an alternative process for delegate selection should the state party not cooperate or be unable to resolve the issue on its own. The Rules and Bylaws Committee failed to use the tools it had to independently resolve the matter in good faith before Florida and Michigan voters went to the polls of the ill timed primaries to express their candidate preference.
6) Hillary violated the DNC Rules by keeping her name on the Michigan ballot.
FALSE: Nowhere in the DNC’s Delegate Selection Plans is there any suggestion or command that any candidate remove his or her name from a ballot in a state that is in violation of timing rules. This is why Obama and Edwards were on the Florida ballot, in spite of its primary also being before February 5.
7) Hillary manipulated the process by being the only candidate who kept her name on the Michigan ballot.
FALSE: Kucinich, Dodd and Gravel also kept their names on the Michigan ballot. In fact the decision of some candidates to remove their names from the Michigan ballot was a tactical move designed to curry favor with Democratic Party officials in Iowa who were concerned that the significance of their first-in-the-nation status was being diminished. The risk paid off handsomely for Obama.
Because Edwards and Obama were not on the Michigan ballot, that election cannot be considered a legitimate expression of voter preference of a presidential candidate.
FALSE: According to the Delegate Selection Rules & Bylaws, “Delegates shall be allocated in a fashion that fairly reflects the expressed presidential preference or uncommitted status of the primary voters…” The Michigan ballot included an option for “uncommitted” to ensure that voters could express a presidential preference or uncommitted status consistent with this rule. Nothing in the Rules requires a state to allocate delegates to candidates who voluntarily remove their names from the ballot as John Edwards and Barack Obama did.
9) The primaries in Florida and Michigan are invalid because voters were under informed due to the lack of active campaigning.
FALSE: Voters in Florida and Michigan were very well informed. They had ample access to newspapers, television, books, radio, and the Internet. They could have availed themselves of over a year of coverage of the 2008 election. They could watch every campaign commercial on YouTube. They had the same opportunity as the rest of America to watch 17 televised debates.
Moreover, nowhere in the DNC rules does it specify that candidates must campaign directly in a state to make its primary a legitimate expression of voter candidate preference. Voters in Alaska and Hawaii never get visited by the candidates.
10) All the candidates signed a pledge to the DNC not to campaign in the states violating primary timing.
FALSE: The candidates signed no such pledge to the DNC.
11) Hillary violated the rules against campaigning in Florida and Michigan.
FALSE: Jurisdiction over determinations of whether a candidate shall be considered in violation of the relevant rule (Rule 20 C.1.b.) lies with the Rules and Bylaws Committee. Because the Committee has not ruled against either candidate, it is false to assert that either candidate is in violation.
12) Hillary signed a pledge that she violated by remaining on the ballot in Florida and Michigan?
FALSE: The only pledges signed were between the candidates and the state party chairs in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada. More to the point, they were not binding on the DNC, which is the only organization that has authority over seating delegates. Thus, these pledges are not controlling over the seating of Florida and Michigan delegates.
13) Hillary’s activities in Florida and Michigan look suspicious, between fundraising and holding a victory rally in Florida.
FALSE: Hillary acted well within the letter and spirit of the rules. The rules stipulate that candidates can fundraise in states violating the timing rules and that fundraising activity is not considered impermissible campaigning. Further, the prohibition on campaigning in any state ends as soon as the primary in violation concludes. Hillary’s victory party was within the rules because she did not appear at a campaign event in Florida until after the polls closed.
14) Barack Obama would likely win more delegates if there were a new contest.
FALSE: The rules provide that a candidate who campaigns or holds press conferences in a state in violation of timing may not receive any of the pledged or unpledged delegates from that state. Because Barack Obama campaigned in Florida when, on Sunday September 30, 2007, he held an impromptu public news conference in Florida, when he bought television advertising time on stations in markets which included much of Florida, and when he ran a campaign in Michigan to encourage voters to vote “uncommitted,” Barack Obama may not be entitled to receive any delegates from Florida or Michigan.
15) Reinstating any of the delegates from either Florida or Michigan would be a travesty against democracy and fair elections. It would be cheating.
FALSE: There are many good and valid reasons for the DNC to have rules regarding delegate selection timing, but none of these reasons relate to ensuring that primaries accurately reflect voter preference. None of these involve the preservation of democracy.
Neither Clinton nor Obama has the power to reinstate the delegates unless they already have won 50% plus 1 of the total delegates. Therefore neither has the power to cheat. This matter lies in the hands of the DNC’s Rules & Bylaws Committee which is neutral.
Were Obama to gain control of the Credentials Committee at the DNC, he would have the power to exclude the delegates from Michigan and Florida. That would be a biased effort to disenfranchise two large states. That would be a travesty and one the Republicans could easily exploit in November.
16) Hillary has changed her position on Florida and Michigan now that she may not receive 50% + 1 of the total delegates need to win before the pledged delegate primaries conclude.
FALSE: From the beginning of the Florida controversy, Hillary has consistently stated that if she wins, meaning securing 50% + 1 of the total delegates, she will reinstate the Florida and Michigan delegation at the convention if the DNC fails to resolve the problem on their own before such time.
Obama has changed his position now that seating the Florida and Michigan delegates would put Hillary in the lead. In August of last year he said that resolving the delegate issue was not his job (”I’m like a player on the field. I shouldn’t be setting up the rules” ) and in September he suggested to Florida donors that if he were the nominee whether he would seat in the state’s excluded delegates, declaring that he would “Do right by Florida voters.”
Currently the race for pledged delegates is so split that neither candidate will receive the 50% plus 1 delegates they need to seal their nomination before the Convention. Obama now wants to set the rules and insists that the DNC must refuse to seat Florida and Michigan’s delegates, even though DNC Rules clearly provide remedies to include them. His arguments are not based in the rules and are not in the interest of democracy or the Democratic Party, but only in the fact that those delegates reflect a greater nationwide preference for Hillary Clinton.
17) A new primary or caucus would settle the issue in a fair way that would maintain party unity.
FALSE: A new primary or caucus that complies with timing rules would have been fair if the date had been set before people started voting in Iowa. Once people started voting, each subsequent primary or caucus was affected. The campaigns have campaigned and spent money in reliance on this calendar. The candidates, campaigns, and electorates are not the same today as they were before voting began. Any new contest would be on an unlevel playing field. It is unnecessary, an insult to the voters who already voted, and unacceptable.
Sources:
2008 Delegate Selection Rules for the Democratic National Convention (hereinafter “DNC Rules”), Rules 19-20, Sections C. 4-9, Section D.
DNC Rules, Rule 20, Section C.1.a.
DNC Rules, Rule 20.C.5-7 provide several remedies including empowering the Rules & Bylaws committee to implement processes to seat the delegates from an offending state
DNC Rules, Rule 20 C.7.
DNC Rules, Rule 20 C.6-7
DNC Rules, Rule 13 A.
DNC Rules, Rule 19 B., Rule 20.
Additional Sources:
Washington Post
TBO.com Breaking News
(small, medium and large sizes; for both dogs and cats)
+ 
This is amazing. The Kool-Aid drinkers having been pushing their phoney narrative so long that even the media have become intoxicated with the false notion that MI & FL don’t count. They will be counted.
You are of good and noble service…Thanks…
Nice try, guys. As with anything else, the punishment must be followed through on in order for the rules to ever be taken seriously. The DNC has the right to enact penalties in order to preserve an orderly primary process - which both candidates understood and agreed to.
Did you miss Hillary on NHPR back in the fall?
Had she NOT said this in order to pander to New Hampshire voters, she might have a case. But in this instance it is 100% clear that Hillary Clinton understood the penalties being enacted on Michigan, and that her conversion to a firebrand on this issue is born completely out of political expedience.
Why isn’t South Carolina being punished equally?
Good question….
Why didn’t Hillary care about MI voters until she was in trouble later in the campaign?
Preach it to another choir…Friz….How about Rev. Wright’s church..
Notice how you got zero responses to your completely valid point as to Hillary’s sudden conversion to the Michigan cause.
I’ll repeat Hillary’s statement:
“I personally did not think it made any difference, uh, whether or not my name was on the ballot. You know, it’s clear, this election they’re having is not going to count for anything” - Hillary Clinton, on NHPR, 10/11/2007
Straw man. Count the votes. Erroneous info on the rules from Obama backers. Now we all understand the rules rather than the roolz.
No one responds to the one thousandth publishing of that particular quote because Obamabots are tedious and annoying.
No, no one responds to it because they can’t accept the fact that Hillary’s crusade for MI and FL voters is born out of expedience rather than principle.
Also, I think the term “straw man” does not mean what you think it means, as they say in The Princess Bride.
In response to this, Obama, October 2007 Iowa “I have made it perfectly clear my campaign will not inject race into this campaign nor will it support anyone using it” and Obama in Iowa January 2008 “In no way will my campaign go against its commitment not to do ANY form of campaigning in Fla and Mich”
Barry lies and lies and lies, yet the master of eliminating opponents in slimy means got out foxed by his own doing!
Obamabot responses will be, it is Clinton’s fault, just as Wright, Ayers, NAFTA, empty career and lobbyist lies and actions by Obama are Clinton’s fault! To Obamabots, fuck you there are still 9 primarys where Obama can try to make a comeback!
According to the rules, Obama gets nothing for Fla and Mich, rules are rules, bitch huh Obamabots?
Setting aside the validity of the way you’re using those quotes, “he did it too” is not a response. Why do you think Hillary said one thing in NH and another five months later?
Look at what your candidate is doing now — he blocked the revote and blocking the count. That is more damaging than whatever Hillary said then. Your defense of “she said it too” is IRRELEVANT (assuming you are quoting her accurately).
This issue is bigger than either candidates and as this blog reveals the DNC can actually set this right. Set it right in the name of Democracy and the democratic party, it must. You guys are unfortunately on the wrong side of this issue. You should be advocating “count every vote” if you believe in true democracy. Your attitude and Obama’s mirror that of third world countries where they don’t count for fear of LOSING (Musharaff did not hold elections because of fear of losing.) You guys don’t want to count FL and MI because of fear of losing the nomination. You are shameful and pathetic. If the roles were reversed and Hillary was blocking the count, I would still have said this and forced DNC to resolve it because in a Democracy you COUNT EVERY VOTE. Once you start corrupting that ideal, you have lost forever. Not to mention the practical side of this issue which is that if Obama is the nominee without counting them, those states will not vote for him. For all your privileged existence, you guys are really fools.
Excuse me but the DNC does not have the right to take away any American’s vote and I would say that regardless of who gets them!
http://www.nhpr.org/node/13858
Selective quoting has become so common by the Obama camp that it’s not surprising anymore, but this one takes the cake. Here’s the full transcript of HRC’s answer to the question:
Desert Dawg: Thank you!
Big Media, especially MSNBC, is not a news network, they have become personal agents for Obama. They get their talking points directly from what Axelrod & Co. feeds to them daily. Pretty disgusting. The days of MSNBC reporting news is long gone. They have now become the “Place for Politics.” Even during the day, when CNN and Fox are running actual news stories (however limited), MSNBC just breaks in every 1/2 hour with a snipet or two about a Breaking News item, and then back to more gossip, gossip, and tabloid gossip masqueraded as news commentary. Pathetic, really.
so why hasn’t anyone posted this on HuffPo yet? They have an article about the seating of delegates and they are all yelling about the rules as usual.
I would post it, but have been banned. They won’t tell me why.
Apparently they have some sort of counter and after a certain number of pro-Hillary posts you are automatically banned.
We need to force Dean and Brazile to resign. He is protecting Obama in so many ways from helping him cancel the NC debate to making sure that FL and MI aren’t seated just so that Clinton won’t have the popular vote argument. Does anyone here agree with me that Brazile is holding a gun to Dean’s head about this. She’s not going to allow him to do the right thing as long as it helps Clinton in the end.
What can we do about this? We’ve sent letters, emails, cans…what do we need to do to have our voices heard? Protest in D.C.? They are trying to make sure that Clinton doesn’t make it to Denver. I think we need to protest before then. *sigh* This situation seems hopeless because the media and the Democratic Party leadership are all in the tank for Obama.
Actually, Clinton is unlikely to “make it” to Denver because the delegate math indicates that she needs 30-point wins in every state in order to overcome Obama’s pledged delegate lead. Play with this yourself:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/29/delegate.counter/index.html
Finally, MI and FL delegates will get seated, but it’s important to acknowledge two things: 1) that the DNC has the ability to put into place meaningful penalties in order to safeguard the orderliness of the primary process, and 2) any election in which the eligible voters are led to believe their vote is not going to count is a compromised election.
And also: votes with one candidate available are all well and good in the Soviet Union, but we usually don’t go in for that sort of thing.
Ehemmmm….Friz….Your candidate is headed for POLITICAL OBLIVION…Now go bite your pillow….
Actually, you’re dead wrong. Obama’s is terrified because he doesn’t have the delegates to win. Only by SELECTIVELY denying Hillary states and trying to argue that his delegates should be weighted more heavily does he have a chance.
Bud, Obama isn’t “denying” states; the campaign has simply been conducted under a certain set of rules, which all candidates have acknowledged from the outset. Suggesting that the Obama campaign drove the process from the outset is frankly ludicrous, given that Harold Ickes was involved in the decision and that the campaign had barely begun at that point.
To put it another way, the “denial” that you’re referring to happened back in 2007, and your suggestion that Obama was behind it is pretty uncreditable.
If Obama was not playing the puppets at DNC recently, they would have resolved this issue for fear of losing those states in November. As I said before he is on the wrong side of this issue and DNC is ready to commit political suicide over this. It is not only those states they will lose in November, it is also people like me who care about real Democracy.
pm– spot on! however, you may be forgetting one thing: Tim Russert’s new reconfiguration of the Electoral map where BO does not need FL and MI to win the GE! He wins Colorado and Virginia and that makes up for FL and MI. So, the “old school” way of looking and FL and MI is well… old school, according to Russert.
Furthering that hypothesis, Ed Schultz just said tonight on CNN’ Larry King that Florida is a political graveyard.
I don’t want a nominee who writes off FL and MI even before we start the election. Russert and Schultz are not credible to me.
TIMMY AND SCHULTZY WHAT SOURCES HA HA HA HA HA ARE YOU STUPID……THE GRAVEYARD IS THE FURTURE DEMOCRATIC PARTY……
I couldn’t have put it better myself, excellent analysis JKFriz.
cause you ARE JFriz!
“cause you ARE JFriz!”
Sorry to disappoint you, but I’m not. The administrator of the site can tell our I.P. addresses apart, if it’s so important to you. Send them an email!
They come in twos, because they are afraid.
I recieved this e mail from Greater Orlando’s Team Hillary here in Orlando Florida. There is going to be a rally to protest on seating the Michigan and Florida delegates. Please contact Jim at the phone number or e-mail address below. A private individual is funding a protest to be held April 30 in Washington, DC.
The protest will be in front of the DNC on April 30th. Please pass this on to others and ask them to respond to Jim via email at fdrjim@gmail.com or call him at 888.599.1586. Jim, along with Blaine Whiford, the Statewide events coordinator, will be there. He also has a group in VA that will be attending as well -
Remember, you all are part of something extremely special! Pass this info along all over the blogs.
This is too important. I will go to DC for this.
Protest is very important as it allows the senators and reps, plus delegates,supers and party elders to feel backlash if party continues rigging this primary.
A massive email event might convince some of the supers that they have to think twice and asking Dean/Brazile coup to end. This might help, but doing NOTHING is not the answer.
It’s clear that this is a coup, and don’t forget the major roles played by Teddy and Kerry. Remember at election time when they will need your votes.
Here is an email I sent to the FDP today. I am furious with my congressman (Wexler).
From an article in the Miami Herald today-Apr. 23
”As a Floridian it’s hard to stomach those that boycotted our election now telling us it was a totally legitimate election when there was no campaign, there was no contest, no get-out-the-vote effort, none of the things that make up a campaign,” said Obama’s Florida campaign chair Rep. Robert Wexler of Boca Raton.
All of the candidates were on the ballot. All of the candidates agreed not to campaign in Florida. Some of the candidates held private fundraisers in Florida.
I called Rep. Wexler’s DC office today (he is my congressman) and questioned the first part of the quote-”As a Floridian it’s hard to stomach those that boycotted our election now telling us it was a totally legitimate election…”. It is patently obvious that the pronoun “THOSE” refers to Sen. Clinton. It was made very clear to me by the way my concerns were brushed off as invalid, that his office is now operating as a full time campaign headquarters for Barack Obama.
Wexler has repeatedly avowed that he will work to ensure FL. votes would count towards the selection of our nominee. His statement in the Miami Herald implies that he has a conflict of interests, ie, his duty to the FL. voters he represents or to his candidate of choice.
Should Sen. Obama be nominated without counting FL. & MI. (without using voodoo math), I will campaign against him and join the movement to encourage voters to become Independents. As a lifelong democrat, I do not feel that I’ll be leaving the Party. The Party has left me. It no longer represents my core values or political beliefs.
Pam–tonight Larry King asked Ed Schulz how he thought that BO would win FL in the Fall if he’s the Dem. nominee, Schulz’ response was… BO doesn’t have to concern himself with Florida, because it’s a “political graveyard.” I was shocked and upset when he said that, just discounting FL as if it was not big deal to once again disenfranchise voters.
I would really like to go to the DNC to protest this, this is beyond infuriating.
OT - Uppity, did you close down your blog page? I can’t get to it any more.
No my blog is alive and well, it was just typed in wrong here at the white line. I was in a hurry, had erased all cookied and had to type it in again.
You can get there now from my Name Link. Sorry bout that.
A typical media problem, highlighted on POTUS 08 this morning- Chris Cor, former right-wing shill radio host on WMAL-630 in DC, now a host for POTUS, interviewing some guy identified as a non-partisan state senator from Colorado. This guy was asked “is the argument that Barack Obama has problem winning blue-collar votes legitimate, or is it just spin?”
The guest quickly answers “Oh, its just spin. Barack will have no problem winning New York, California, Pennsylvania- he and Hillary are too close on the issues.” Um, then why can’t he close the deal, buddy?
Here’s what pisses me off- we NEVER hear the obvious point that Hillary is FAR more likely to win over the AA and Upper-class liberal white voters who are keeping Obama afloat than Obama is likely to win over the white middle-class voters, Catholics, Latinos, women, the elderly, etc. No, it’s just ASSUMED Obama will win all those groups, and never you mind that he’s failed totally in most primary contests so far.
Chris Cor mentions Lanny Davis, to which the guest responds “well, he’s a Hillary surrogate..” Yes, but you are an OBAMA surrogate. The difference? You don’t admit it.
Anyone else out there sick to death of hearing “nonpartisan” guests bleat Obama talking points and act as Obamapoligists while claiming they don’t support either candidate?
“Hillary is FAR more likely to win over the AA and Upper-class liberal white voters who are keeping Obama afloat than Obama is likely to win over the white middle-class voters, Catholics, Latinos, women, the elderly, etc.”
Again, John, the adult, to the rescue.
Obama is NEVER going to win this crowd. The real truth, his chances of winning them even in a perfect world was always marginal at best. Now that they have a reason NOT TO VOTE FOR HIM, they are going to do just that.
If Hillary wins by outpolling Obama under fair rules, more power to her. If she does it by having the rules changed to benefit only her (like she proposes for Florida and Michigan), she will be lucky to get 20% of the Black vote. Whoever posted that she is more likely ot get Black votes doesn’t understand how pissed off Black voters will be if she steals this.
In fact — please explain this logic. Both Florida and Michigan voted knowing that they would get no delegates. So why would the status quo lead them to vote for McCain? Nothing would be changed from the situation presented when they voted!
I’m sick of it. I’m really sick of news networks pretending to be delivering us the news. Instead, they are political players in this election. Taking sides and acting as P.R. agents for Obama. Andrea Mitchell and Gloria Borger love to refer to their Blackberrys to regurgetate the BO talking points to us, the viewers — from Obama/Axelrod’s lips, to the Blackberry, straight to the American public.
We can send Hillary money. The Obamanauts are just making noise to divert attention from his loss in PA, and the new adverts (featuring Wright) in NC.
Don’t let them confuse you. Now we all have an excellent source to answer the media/OFB. Let’s not get all het up and waste too much energy on it though.
I have every confidence that Hillary knows how to navigate these waters. What she needs most right now is MONEY!
Ain’t no quit in Hillary and there ain’t no quit in me!
I have been sending money and will continue to. Have urged friends to make donations even the small amts of $10, $25, $50. It adds up.
We need to do this to let our votes count.
Did you ask Bill Clinton to pitch in?
He got 800,000 for promoting the Colombia trade deal that Hillary allegedly opposes. Least he can do is turn over the money to Hillary’s campaign to show his repentence.
It still comes back to Obama ran campaign commercials in Florida for 2 week before the primary.
And why aren’t Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina subject to the same penalties and MI and FL?
Because Iowa voted “correctly,” as did South Carolina, while New Hampshire’s delegation is basically an even split.
States which voted for Saint Barack aren’t going to be punished.
I think you knew that answer already though, didnt you?
Not they didn’t they moved their date.
Rule 11.A specifically set the date for the primaries & caucuses for those three states as “no earlier than 22 days before the first Tuesday in February” (Iowa), “no earlier than 14 days before the first Tuesday in February” (New Hampshire), and “no earlier than 7 days before the first Tuesday in February” (South Carolina).
Iowa held their caucuses on January 3rd. That’s more than 22 days before the first Tuesday in February. New Hampshire held their primary on January 8th. That’s more than 17 days before the first Tuesday in February. And South Carolina held their primary on January 26th. That’s more than 7 days before the first Tuesday in February.
By “voted correctly” I meant “voted for Obama.” I thought that was clear.
Yeah I get the joke, but why is it allowed, yes I know the joke, but WHY?
Because Big Money doesn’t want the Clintons in office. That’s all I can figure. Nothing else makes sense. Donna Brazile isn’t holding the whole nation at bay. There’s something much larger (!) in play here.
Talktruth….I agree with you on that one…Lots at stake and things are looking very 1930’s….It’s shapin up to be an interesting year….Horde your rice….
It’s far more than money that’s creating this coup and push for Obama at all costs by party leaders.
It’s the black caucus. Very poweful, and at the mid term election Dems have been warned by caucus they’d lose the house and senate seats controlled by AA votes. AA represent important base for the party.They threaten to leave the party.
Other reason is younger voters being seen as new democratic recruits are seen as the “future” of the party and that Obama- not Clinton can bring them in.
Actually, Maybe. Young voters are far less reliable than older voters, but Kennedy and Co are betting on Obama’s oratorical skills and his power to sway this young group who fawn over Obama and believe his bullshit. They question nothing and are therefore ideal…providing they come out in the general and actually vote.
Other reasons for Party’s behavior is their desire to wrest control of the party from Clintons. Dean despises them, and actually has proven himself as a partial,biased,and inept manipulator in a power struggle that is not being conducted democratically.
Everyone has been fed the garbage that the ROOLZ cannot change, yadayada, but this is incorrect as we know the bylaws are not being properly put before the media and/or voters.
This is propoganda pure and simple. I do not want the Democratic party to shift to the extreme left manipulated by a cadre of multi millionaire power brokers that feel Obama can win, and wish to destroy Hillary’s chances at all cost.
Big money wants to take this lone opportunity to take power and bet it on Obama rather than Hillary.
You would have thought they’d have vetted BO far better, and had a better understanding of the general electorate.
Their specs tell them along with the students, indies, and black votes they can do this as Hillary backers will ultimately vote for Obama.
I believe their stupidity and ineptness will cost them the Presidency but will gain seats in Congress and Senate for Dems. McCain may win this,but the party is a mess. I voted way back when as a democrat and this reminds me of past failures.
Right now Obama is avoiding debates as he does so badly in them as fears she can actually win this, and diminish Obama’s invincibility aura.
He is clearly being a coward, and should be called out, and challenged continually on this issue alone.
Obama is in closet mode and is being peotected by Deaniacs as their guy has been exposed.
“It’s the black caucus. Very poweful, and at the mid term election Dems have been warned by caucus they’d lose the house and senate seats controlled by AA votes. AA represent important base for the party.They threaten to leave the party.”
You’re really over-estimating the power of the CBC. Not all black SDs have been strong-armed by Jesse Jackson, Jr. Also, leave the Democratic Party and go where? The members of the CBC want their jobs first and foremost. In states like SC, the voters would be crazy to not vote for their Congressional Representatives. If the DNC were to decide in favor of seating the MI & FL delegations, there would be nothing they could do and the voters would not hold them accountable. They may not vote for Hillary and other white Dems running for office, but they will go to the polls and vote for their AA Congress people.
This is more about whatever/whomever is behind Obama and Clinton-hatred. In the end, it won’t only be Hillary who is the scapegoat, it will be the AA community as well.
Now do you see why I despise that man?
Agree…..Imagine democrats actually reading the rules and getting pissed off……
Obama campaigned in Michigan too, he had fliers sent out askign people there to vote undecided, campaigning is campaigning and Obama asked something of the voters there under his campaign, thus Obama faulters in Fla and Mich!
Rules are a bitch and Obama broke the rules, so Fla rules are broken because of a republican majority, and Michigan because of idiots, fair enough, Obmaa broke them as well, so he is subject to what, disqualification from the nomination if Fla and MIch do not stand?
Has anyone sent these rules to Rachel Maddow, Ed Schultz, or any other radio or tv pundit? Lord knows that Keith Olbermann won’t have a “Special Comment” regarding these rules because then he would have to actually read the truth and…(gasp!) repeat the truth instead of blathering on with his phony Edward R. Murrow radio voice.
How can we get this information out, and how do I go about getting permission to put this on my blog? Not that my blog is as big as this one, but I do have a number of Obama supporters who come around (fewer and fewer as the race goes on—they don’t like to hear anything positive about Hillary Clinton).
Thanks for this post, it’s great and an eye opener!
GNATS in the msm don’t care and have’nt cared for a while….I’d send that to the ones who at least try…NPR might be a good start…If not you could send it to the British….Or msm hates it when the British show em up….
This statement is interesting regarding Florida:
The State Party argues that the Democrats in the legislature were robbed of meaningful power to stop the Republican effort to set an early primary date because Republicans drafted the controlling legislation and packed it with other unrelated issues which the Democrats in the legislature felt they could not in good conscience oppose.
So even here, it’s admitted that the Democrats in the legislature decided to vote for the plan knowing that it would strip of their delegates. It frankly does not matter that they “felt they could not in good conscience oppose” the bill on these other grounds. This is what legislating is all about. You fight for what you have to fight for, you compromise over what you accept as a compromise. If it was so important to the Florida Democrats in the legislature that their delegates were going to be stripped if they voted for the bill, they should never have voted for it. When they voted for it, they accepted the consequences.
Jeff….They were voting for paper trails at the voting booths….The FL democrats were held HOSTAGE and Dean the Putz knows it…Your candidate has refused a e-vote…WHAT IS HE AFRAID OF….Now bite your pillow…..
Jeff, Obama campaigned in Fla, so he should be disqualified as a candidate then, he broke rules and his word!
Hillary has hammered the stuffing out of Obama. He’s taking a day off, for crying out loud. Obama is a Scrabble player with no vowels. He’s calling a challenge to Hillary’s triple-letter double word score. Oh, look - here it is in the dictionary “vexation.” You lose. Sorry waffle boy.
“Obama is a Scrabble player with no vowels. He’s calling a challenge to Hillary’s triple-letter double word score.”
I fail to see how being behind in every legitimate count equates to a “triple-letter double word score”.
That’s a joke, OK? Politics ain’t Scrabble, that’s for sure!
Jeff…I don’t know how you walk upright with Obama’s foot so far up your ass….
“Jeff…I don’t know how you walk upright with Obama’s foot so far up your ass….”
You’ve got “Goebbels” and “fascist” left, and then I guess you’re all out of hyperbolic insults.
Ehemmmm…..Goose step in Unison Jeff…Your holdin up the line…
I have a Dream…that someday gets so fed up and disgusted with us clueless idiot Hillary supporters that he leaves for good.
We really aren’t worthy of your vast Obamawisdom, Jeff. Please don’t waste any more of your precious Obamaposts with us. Your talents are unappreciated here.
That someday JEFF gets so fed up, I meant to type.
You guys would miss me…I make this fun for you.
Is that what your mommy told you? That the little girls refuse to go near you because they like you so much? How sad.
That bad smell coming from your room? I dont think you found all the Easter Eggs.
Don’t worry, Jeff, you can feel free to leave. There are plenty of witless Obamabots with nothing to add who pop in at this site. You are nothing special- that’s just another lie your mommy told you.
Have to say….Jeff I enjoy insulting you really….How working class of me….You are at least an entertaining PILLOW BITER….
Did you get this assignment today? One of you seems to pop up every day or so. We’re flattered, frankly. And it’s always amusing. (Well, to a point. … because you all usually get all puffy and righteous.)
Did you get this assignment today?
I was here several days, ago, when you actually called my comment that I will be voting for Hillary in the GE “refreshing and dignified”. Susan, no one gets “assignments”. I come to No Quarter because I’m a political junkie with time to pass at work, and as an Obama supporter, I enjoy vigorous debate w/Hillary supporters. I started out at Taylor Marsh, got banned for expressing my pro-Obama opinions, and came here. That’s all. So far, you’ve been decent enough not to ban me. I appreciate that.
Ehmmm……Jeff…trolling on the company time…this is not very ethical….Using company time and pay on a political blog…Shame on you PILLOW BITER…LOL
Susan, they pop up when they are afraid and realize they don’t have a leg to stand on.
And you, Jeff are the arbiter of “legitimate”? Florida Democrats were lucky to get the voting machine bill (providing for a paper trail) past Republican opposition and into a “must pass” bill. The Republicans then added the poison pill of moving the primary date, with the full knowledge that this move could cost the Democrats their delegates for the primary. The Republicans were thrilled with that prospect, as was your guy, but your guy has taken this a step further, costing the Democratic Party the delegates in the general election by refusing to accommodate the delegates of Florida until after he is selected as the Democratic candidate, making them as voiceless as the D.C Congresswoman.
Yes….BABY-O is takin a break….and Jeff’s favorite pastor Rev. Wright is addressing the Nat’l. Press Corp…..
Oh, that explains it. I thought he called in sick because of Rezco.
This was posted by BTD at TalkLeft: I goofed and didn’t post the reference.
The link goes to a video of the whole meeting. It’s very interesting. It’s pretty clear that going into the meeting FL & MI never had a chance. The punishment had already been decided.
Can you give a link to the original post by Jon Winkleman and Jeffrey H. Campagna?
Thanks,
Greg
One of the authors here.
I began this because so many reporters were simply repeating the distortions of the rulesput out by the Obama campaign without actually reading the rules. My friend Jeff, a lawyer, joined in. It was orginally written as a doc to send out to the press rather than something intended as an internet post.
I did post it on MyDD a few months after writing it.
I will admit that as strong Clinton supporters, Jeff and I do have a a slightly partisan spin, HOWEVER I stand by the piece as something firmly rooted on the real rules as written by the Rules and Bylaws Committee and passed by the DNC.
Jon,
http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/3/17/93114/2956
Sorry if this comes up twice.
Anglachel’s Journal has a new post up titled Party Rules and Political Reality. It’s a good read.
http://www.anglachelg.blogspot.com/2008/04/party-rules-and-political-reality.html
Great job! I’m posting about it on Buck Naked Politics (largely pointing readers back to NQ)
Excellent job, Owl06. The rules allow for Mi and Fl to be seated as voted. I have to admit, I did not know these facts. The Detroit News ran “Michigan is becoming Clinton’s secret weapon” Here’s a snippet:
snip
This contest is getting more interesting by the day. Obama is imploding in on itself with the Roolz. Quick! Someone get me a 6pack and a lawn chair.
I have heard that Obama wanted to take his name off the ballot because he was going to lose big time, and he was going to lose the black vote in Detroit…at that time he was not doing well with black voters. This was before the Obama people savaged the Clintons with lies and distortions and smarminess. Obama knew that if he lost MI his campaign was over. He may have persuaded Edwards and others to go along to poison Hillary’s win. It worked. the media knows the truth. It just doesn’t want us to know the truth. They are complicit. SURPRISE!
Good youtube video which sums up what happened in MI: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QshvHUmSVc0
Yes, at the time the mayor of Detroit, Kwame Kilpatrick was neutral and I think leaning towards Clinton. The governor and many senators also endorsed Clinton so I’m sure Obama believed he would not win the state. I believe Clinton would’ve won but he would’ve came in a very close second because by then at least 70-85% of the black vote would’ve gone to him. Obama is a coward which is why he didn’t want to take that chance. He preferred to just disenfranchise blacks in Detroit rather than take any chance that they would’ve voted for Clinton. Disgusting.
Anglachel also wrote about MI and FL BACK IN JANUARY and I think it is still applicable today.
http://www.anglachelg.blogspot.com/2008/01/seating-michigan-and-florida-delegates.html
Obama played political games but now that the race is so close the right thing to do is to include the millions of voters who came out for both Clinton and Obama in these two states.
Obama ran radio commercials in NH criticizing Hillary for keeping her name on the Michigan ballot. He didn’t say “it doesnt matter if her name is on the ballot, it won’t count.” He said she was insulting the people of NH.
Then, he asked his supporters to vote “uncommitted.” He didn’t ignore Michigan, he asked his supporters to participate in the primary. Why ask your supporters to vote “uncommitted” if you don’t expect that primary to count?
Why participate in a primary that “doesn’t count” at all?
Obama also ran tv ads in Florida and held a press conference there, and his name was on the ballot along with Hillary’s. He cheated there, and still lost. No problem, Saint Barack- we won’t count that state either.
We’ll just figure out how to win in November without Florida or Michigan. And without Latinos, Catholics, blue-collar workers, the elderly, etc. etc.
Yoiu still haven’t explained why the rules should be changed after the fact. What is so wrong with having a rule and applying it equally to all involved? See, to me it doesn’t matter whether she got more votes or not. If she did, fine. But she got them under conditions in which EVERYONE knew it was nothing more than a beauty pagent, with no delegates at stake. Changing the rules now and giving delegates to her would be like the NFL deciding in the middle of the regular season that pre-season games will count in the standings.
Oh, I forgot! This is the Warrior Queen of Tuzlah we are talking about! So the rules should not apply to her if they do not help her! My bad! Now I understand!
The mule is back…
Yep, the Mule is back . . . kicking your ass!
Tell me this Blob….
Why did the voters go to the polls to vote?
It was a cheap political stunt….in keeping with the FL. republican setup…It has backfired on him….They will seat both delegations before the nominee is decided….If not the DNC can kiss goodbye many electoral wins down the lne for a long time….This is about saving face….And for Dean the Putz it’s too late….
Whine #15 has it exactly backwards. NOT reinstating the FL and MI delegates would be a travesty against democracy and fair elections.
They had an election where everyone knew ZERO delegates would be at stake. How does it become “fair” to change the rules after the fact to benefit one candidate?
It becomes fair to the voters, B-Rob. You do remember them don’t you ? Since when has voter disenfranchisement been a principal of the Democratic Party ? Is this the “new politics” and change you want to usher in ? If so, you can stick it back up your a** where the sun don’t shine.
You are a moron, Rob. You can’t make a principaled argument for changing the rules after the fact to benefit one candidate (the suprise loser). You can’t offer a rational explanation for why the status quo is WORSE than having a revote and YOUR PEOPLE opposed a revote. And you can’t explain why it is a good thing for a party with a significant minority populaiton (for now) to take the nomination and the lead from a Black candidate who has led from start to finish it votes, delegates, states won and money raised (the most EVER raised!) and handing it to the underachieving White candidate. So you fall back on a bogus “disenfranchisement” argument. Uh, huh.
You think the Black voters who have given Obama the lead under the rules, fair and squiare, might feel a wee bit “disenfranchised” if you gift wrap the nomination for his inferior White opponent? Think all those young voters might feel a bit disenfranchised, as their “Yes, we can” gets morphed into “Yes, you can if I let you”? Only delusional Hill-bots would think that those young and Black voters would vote for her if she pulled some shit like that.
Can you people comprehend the ripple effect such a manuever might have? Or do you just not care?
It’s the Re-vote blocking (and they were blocked, please do not let me post that stuff AGAIN) that stink.
You still have not explained how Obama is responsible for Hillary’s Florida campaign chair Debbie Wasserman Schulz rejecting a revote. That still escapes me.
And while we are talking “disenfranchisement” . . . you think the Black voters who have put Obama in the lead, working under the same rules everyone has, might feel a little disenfranchised if the nomination is then handed to Hillary based on an after the fact rule change? You think they might be a little (*snort*) “bitter”? I have yet to see any of you folks acknowledge that. Maybe you are in denial, thinking Black voters will just slough if off, walk in the booth and vote “D” the way they always do. Or maybe you simply don’t care.
It’s almost like HC having the gall to say Obama could be her vice president . . . when he was in the fcuking lead. As a Black friend said:
“You know why Hillary said Obama could be her number two? Because Miss Daisy doesn’t drive!”
“you think the Black voters who have put Obama in the lead, working under the same rules everyone has, might feel a little disenfranchised….”
I don’t think my gastro-intestinal system can take much more of all this sudden caring about the AA community this election cycle by these white radical leftwing nutjobs who have only and always fucked things up for our community with their sickening paternalistic attitudes as they exploit the black community for their own agenda. Don’t be fooled by these ratpricks! This has been in the works since 2004: setting up the black community with this biracial candidate so they can maneuever for control of the Party.
Trust me, this has nothing to do with black people and our feelings.
Because the rules don’t say that no delegates would be seated. If you are going to comment on this thread, then at least read the original post first. The rules say that the standard penalty is a loss of 50% of the delegated … a penalty that was not enforced on three other states. Any claim that Dean and the DNC are just ‘following the rules’ is absurd.
Tell me what you think this means:
“Reducing” is the operative phrase. The decided to reduce the delegate numbers, which was by a unanimous votes, is why there were ZERO DELEGATES at stake during the January primary.
Yes, it is true that some can be added back; that has always been true. But you Hill-bots have still not justified adding them back now, making that new after the fact ruling effective in such a manner that it costs the leading candidate his lead, and hands the nomination to the trailing, inferior candidate, Hillary. THAT is your problem! You need an after the fact rule change to stay in the game and you are whining about not getting one!
Yes, it is true that some can be added back;
What justice would you have rendered by and for fools that seek, in anyway, to nullify 2.3 million votes? One is a lonely number.
What completely escapes you, as reflected in your statement, is the absence of principles, that exist, in the leadership of the Democratic party.
I would conclude the facts tell me, after watching Harry Ried, he is ineffective. That does not mean Rethug monkey wrench gangs don’t exist, they do.
I would conclude the facts tell me, after watching Nancy Pelosi, that she faces many entrenched pipes feeding from pork/oil barrel and Mario is a better plummer than the Speaker is.
I would conclude the facts tell me, after watching Howard Dean, that he is afraid that mistakes he made, will be harvested on the convention floor. So be it.
If the current conversation between these three igits is about “forcing” delegates to make a decision by June, then the faux-candidate will be “thumped”…again.
THAT is your problem!
Media Misleads Public about Florida, Michigan, and DNC Rules
by D. Cupples| Once again, many media outlets are refusing to check facts — while insisting that neither Florida’s nor Michigan’s Democratic delegates should be seated at the party’s nominating convention in August. I say once again, because many o…
I wholeheartedly agree! The problem, Hill-bots, is that Hillary won ZERO delegates from Florida and Michigan because ZERO delegates were at stake! What you actually want is a post hoc rule change that would solely benefit one person. Since you have no logical argument supporting this post hoc rule change, you resort to the utter fiction that she “won” delegates.
Look, I consider it laughable for you folks to include the Florida and Michigan votes totals in the “votes cast” columns. After all, why not include the voter opinions of people in Ontario or Bermuda, since they have just as many delegates at stake? But if it will salve your wounds to include those votes, have at it. But to then take the leap to say “she won fair and square”, so the rules should be changed after the fact to add delegates where all parties agreed there would be ZERO delegates, is simply bizarre.
Well honey, then you won’t be the least bit surprised when they both go for mccain in November because baby boy ‘bama wouldn’t let anyone revote?
not going to tell you how important florida has been historically, but you remember 2000 right? not sayin’ just askin’
Brob….You sound like a PETULANT PILLOW BITER….
one could say a bitter pillow biter?
If the shoe fits….It is a nice visual don’t you think…LOL
I like talking about them like they aren’t here. It gives me a tingle up my leg.
You still do not make a rational argument for changing the rules after the fact and giving delegates where none were at stake during the actual vote.
You are arguably making a claim that there should be a revote. OK fine. Just have the Hillary backing Florida delegation (Bill Nelson, etc.) to agree to a revote.
What’s that? All the Florida Dems oppose a revote? And Obama is not a “Florida Dem”? Er, yeah . . . .
You people make no sense! You don’t want a revote with delegates at stake (which would be fair), but you want to apply delegates where all parties (including the Warrior Queen) agreed there would be none. You are claiming that people would be “disenfranchised” if the rules are not changed post hoc; yet the people who sat home and did not vote because there were no delegates at stake, well you just say “Fcuk them”! How does this make sense to you? What is your explanation to the people who didn’t vote in January?
I couldn’t agree more B-Rob!
cause he’s YOU!
I don’t see anything wrong with some sort of revote, but I don’t think it’s Clinton who is fighting it. Has Obama come out for a revote? I want Clinton’s delegates to be counted in Florida and Michigan, but since he wasn’t on the ballot in Michigan that would be a pretty hollow victory. I prefer that it be legitimate. Point #17 in the post says that it won’t be a level playing field now, but the same can be said for any state that votes after Iowa. The only difference is that now there are fewer candidates, which can change a vote, but some will go to either side so I don’t see what the problem is. Let the people vote, knowing that it counts and knowing who is eligible.
Frankly, I don’t give a toss what does or doesn’t make sense to you.
As for
If someone, be it the DNC or any other entity, tells you not to bother voting ’cause it doesn’t count, you can bloody well bet THERE’S AN AGENDA SOMEWHERE.
I’ll leave it to you to figure out just what that agenda might be!
Meanwhile, Bodiccea carries on whether you like it or not.
Bitter? Not me! My guy is winning and I have the better side of the argument! Scoreboard!
Make that one person, plus at least1.5 million voters in Florida. Again, the “rules” are above in the post, and they appear to be flexible and subject to change by two DNC committees. The rules also state nothing about the actual voter counts, so how do you reach a conclusion that voter counts, as well as Delegate counts, may not be counted under the “rules” ? The folks who voted in Florida were sending a message to their Republican legislators and to the DNC that they were not going to take voter disenfranchisement without a fight, and you and your guy are finally realizing that you are in a fight of significant ferocity; a fight so ferocious as to make the Wizard of O (I really like that appellation) need to take the day off.
simply bizarre.
So is what you choose to focus on.
Watch the markets on Friday and thru next week.
I would buy a 50 lb bag of brown rice and top it off or zero is what you’ll get.
Anybody sent this information to Fox and ABC? I mean we might as well forget CNN and MSNBC.
At Washington Monthly…Auspitz wrote a great piece titled the Law of Rules…..Perhaps our msm could be shamed by the overseas press…The british can sting smartly….methinks….
CO-Chairs of the Rules and Bylaws committee, the ones that allowed a motion to completely strip MI & FL of their delegates, when the rules only said half. and deny Super Delegates when the rules state they can’t be stripped for any reason, there is a hearing on that this month has anyone heard the results?
Alexis Herman (co-chair, Washington, D.C.)
James Roosevelt, Jr. (co-chair, Massachusetts)
Chairs of the Credential Committee
Alexis Herman
James Roosevelt Jr.
Eliseo Roques-Arroyo
Time to start a writing campaign, especially to Ms. Herman.
These guys can overule the punishment….
Herman was the co-chair of the rules and bylaws committee that allowed the motion to deny 100% of the delegates and Super Delegates she is now on the credentials committee.
I am also letting them know that I am leaving the party after 25 years if MI & FL are not counted in the nominating process.
And what do you think Black voters will do if Obama is ripped off in a back room deal adding delegates where EVERYONE AGREED there would be none? It’s like the Black guy winning a foot race, then being told that the White competitor “won” because a late rule change awards the medal to the slowest runner!
Do you expect Black voters to support Hillary if a Black candidate who wins more states, gets more delegates, raises more money and runs a better campaign LOSES on a flipping RULE CHANGE? Do you?
B-Rob:
What agreement are you referring to ? While I could be wrong, as far as I’ve been able to discern, none of the candidates made agreements with anyone other than the state democratic parties, and those were agreements not to campaign or advertise in states that violated the “rules” relating to timing of the primaries. Those rules were violated by your guy in Florida, not Hillary. Can you provide a link to these written agreements from the candidates with the DNC ?
The Rules Committee (Harold Ickes included) voted for ZERO DELEGATES. That is the agreement I are refering to, which is why there are ZERO delegates assigned and Hillary won ZERO DELEGATES in the two states. That is what you people are trying to change after the fact.
Brob you believe the entire African-American population won’t vote for Hillary? Hmmm lets see, obama is trying to disenfranchise MILLIONS of people, the credentials committee corrects itself and makes them count, and Hillary has always advocated on behalf of ALL people and ALL people know that a Clinton means prosperity for ALL and she won’t get AAs vote? How old are you?
(What)…if Obama is ripped off in a back room deal
The he would have reaped what he sowed. Karma.
What plagues you so, that you do not see the forest before the tree?
Why do you make so obvious you have never seen, in person, the effects of clear cutting?
OK, I’ll bite:
Let’s say the rules are changed after the fact and delegates are assigned for Michigan and Florida. And let’s assume for the second question that the after the fact rule change gives Hillary the nomination I have two questions:
1) What do you say to the Florida and Michigan Dems who did not vote and state their preferences BECAUSE they knew no delegates were at stake?
2) What do you say to the Black voters who supported Obama when their candidate, who won the most delegates under the ORIGINAL AGREED rules, loses because of an after the fact rule change that disproportionately benefits only his opponent?
Save it for Sharpton….Brob….Now bite our pillow….
Wow. Today’s posts from workingclass artist are sponsored by the phrase “bite your pillow,” apparently. Christ, I don’t even know what that means.
Nice answer to his questions, though. No Quarter folks (I certainly won’t paint Clinton supporters as a whole with this brush) have a wonderful habit of resorting to playground taunting when asked about real issues.
Iron my shirt.
why don’t you use google? “bite the pillow” is right there …
What response do they have to “you can’t change the rules in the middle of the game” besides “Pillow biter!”
Somehow justifying the disenfranchisement of the voters in two key states with such a flippant little sentence — especially when there was ample time to revote both jurisdictions and HE blocked it in both cases doesn’t do much to help you win the argument here.
But you don’t need to worry about each of us. It’s the voters in Michigan and Florida that are PISSED and committed not to voting for him. So, I’m not sure that the nomination is the only problem that exists with regard to this issue. Unlike you and the other half wits supporting the big bawler, there are lots of Democrats who would actually like to WIN in November and we all see Florida and Michigan as key to that victory. Bloggers from those states have a really good grip on what the big bawler’s campaign thinks of them and their votes (damn little) and there will be no kissy makey uppy in time to salvage this for the party.
Add the disenfranchised in two large states to the rest of the bodies on the big bawler scrap heap and it’s pretty obvious that the pile is getting impossible to overlook ….
Why not answer the question?
What do you say to the Dems who did not vote in January because there were no delegates at stake? And won’t they be as pissed if you change the rules after the fact as the others might be who DID vote knowing there would be no delegates at stake?
The people who did vote lose nothing by keeping the rules the same. In contrast, the people who didn’t vote lose their chance to have a say in delegate selection if the rules are changed after the fact.
Lastly, Florida Dems had the opportunity to do it over again. THEY CHOSE NOT TO! Led by Hillary backer Bill Nelson and Hillary backer Deebie Wasserman Schultz. Remember? Or is that selective memory kicking in again?
“Florida Democrats Won’t Hold Re-Do Primary”
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/17/politics/main3946268.shtml
Somehow justifying the disenfranchisement of the voters in two key states with such a flippant little sentence — especially when there was ample time to revote both jurisdictions and HE blocked it in both cases doesn’t do much to help you win the argument here.
Do you read before you start to type?
No one here advocated not allowing people to be heard. HE DID ….
When he bitches about all of those weeks in Pennsylvania, the revotes could have been held in Florida and Michigan and the healing would have started.
Just because he decided not to go forward is no reason to punish Hillary’s supporters for taking the time and trouble to go to the polls and cast their votes. I am sorry if his voters were persuaded not to go. He can have the undecideds, lick his little paws and MOVE ON since you all seem to think he’s a lock to win, right?
OK, for the last time . . . OBAMA DID NOT HAVE A VOTE IN WHETHER FLORIDA REVOTED OR NOT!
He was not part of the legislature, the Florida Dem Party, and he had no say in the decision!
Where do you people get this shit from?
“Where do you people get this shit from?”
They invent it. It’s easier that way.
It’s the same universe where what any Obama acquaintance from anywhere, at any time, has done or said is directly attributable to him.
MICHIGAN: (where you say he is leading)
(CNN) – A top Michigan Democrat reports that negotiators working to pass an 11th-hour plan for a re-vote in the state are increasingly frustrated with Barack Obama’s failure to either embrace the plan currently being considered, or propose an alternative.
Lawmakers are facing mounting pressure this evening to come up with an agreement before the legislature adjourns Thursday for a two-week recess.
“The Obama people are blocking it in the legislature,” the Democratic source tells CNN, who says that the group has repeatedly and unsuccessfully reached out to the campaign for input and cooperation.
The source says that Obama’s campaign has been asked to craft an alternative or to meet with the Clinton campaign to work out an acceptable compromise, but that those requests have been met with silence.
Obama spokesman Bill Burton disputes this account, though the campaign offers no specifics.
Pull your heads out of the huffington ass and get some news from another source — which by the way is totally in the tank for him as well.
FLORIDA: (Talk Left)
I’ll discuss the merits of this in a later post, but I first want to take a moment to consider the shameless hypocrisy of the Obama campaign. Barack Obama is out there having his campaign argue that mail in voting has some type of impact that requires a Voting Rights Act review that could be troubling. That it will take more than a rubber stamp. Let’s be clear, if the implication is this is just filling out a form, then no one would be bringing this up. Even the time frame is not a particular problem. No, Barack Obama is intimating that HE will raise a Voting Rights Act issue about mail in voting.
The SAME Barack Obama who is co-sponsor of the Senate version of this bill, “The Universal Right To Vote By Mail Act”, which declares that NOT ALLOWING mail in voting in every state (28 do through absentee balloting) disenfranchises voters, now opposes a mail in revote. I have heard of chutzpah, but this one takes the cake.
This is not your Koolaideville where people don’t know facts. If you are going to step out, BRING KNOWLEDGE not spin you asshole … and BRING THAT PILLOW BECAUSE YOU WILL BE BITING IT ALOT!
Ooh. An unnamed top Michigan Democrat said it, so it must be true.
BEE…I salute you for your valiant service…Friz… Bite your pillow….and change your diaper…your man is goin down and will be left behind as an interesting last vestige of a psuedo movement studied briefly in future poly-sci classes…Title of course…DON’T PISS OFF THE WORKING CLASS OR YOU’LL LOSE ELECTIONS….
Why not answer the question?
Why not ASK the right question.
I can almost get on board with this line of reasoning because there’s a suggestion that the reason for reinstating the MI and FL votes has more to do with what’s good for Democrats in November than it does with fairness.
I agree that some sort of compromise has to be reached with regard to this, so that we don’t discredit ourselves with these states in the fall. Unfortunately the MI and FL democratic parties have proven pretty incompetent at sorting this out.
No. The party had worked it out. He said that he would abide by whatever the party decided. Howard had a plan and he didn’t respond in time to put it in motion. Then he had his supporters in Florida come forward and say it “wouldn’t work.”
We pay attention here. We know who screwed the pooch.
No forgiveness on this measure
DEMOCRATS SUPPORT VOTING. THAT IS WHO WE ARE!
But we also support a well-organized and fair process.
And don’t blame Howard Dean’s mistakes on the Obama campaign, by the way. Blame Howard Dean if you want to, but the vitriol for Obama on this issue is unwarranted. The campaign basically said “find something that works and we’ll agree to it,” and they failed to do that. You can say that “Howard Dean is disenfranchising voters” if you want to, I guess, but don’t try to pin this one on Sen. Obama.
Then there was no reason not to revote.
You’re right, and the failure of the Michigan Democratic party to come up with an equitable decision on this is a sad thing. My guess is that Obama would have won Michigan if he had actually been allowed to campaign there.
Jeff you sound like a PETULANT PILLOW BITER…..
B-rob your a moron the rules are clear and always have been denying them isn’t going to change them, as you are trying to do.
Another completely lucid and reasonable response. Thanks.
I agree the rules are clear! Florida and Michigan have ZERO delegates as everyone agreed. Next question?
BROB….Either way you cut it…Your candidate is headed for POLITICAL OBLIVION….Bite your pillow…
I’m wondering if you actually cut-and-paste these, or if your Random Insult Generator has blown a fuse today.
“BROB….Either way you cut it…Your candidate is headed for POLITICAL OBLIVION….Bite your pillow…”
If nothing else, workingclass artist deserves great praise for their undeniable mastery of the copy/paste function.
Repetition strengthens and confirms….YOU ARE STILL A PETULANT PILLOW BITER JEFF…..
See, Jeff, it’s not cut-and-pasting. Sometimes it adds “petulant.” Sometimes it doesn’t. Oh, the variety of the English language.
For their sake, I hope the drugs have kicked in by now…
Ehmmm…..Why are’nt you over there defending Barry’s uncle…Friz seems to think he only says a few objectionable things….Friz is a racial suprematist….
Another reason why Hillary Clinton should not be the nominee:
“Is McCain Courting Blacks In Case the Clintons Wrest the Democratic Nomination from Obama?”
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/04/is-mccain-courting-blacks-in-c.php
and
“End of an aura: Doubts now taint Obama”
http://www.suntimes.com/news/novak/912581,CST-EDT-novak24.article
key paragraph:
“Democratic politicians today see no alternative to Obama as their nominee. Their hard assessment is that Clinton’s clawing her way to the nomination could mean 25 percent McCain support from a radically depleted African-American turnout — a prescription for disaster.”
* * * * *
One expert predicts that 30% of Black voters would cross over to McCain if the Warrior Queen somehow rooked the nomination from Obama. I say a third will, especially the young.
You can’t beat Obama fair and square where it counts (in the voting booth). If you steal it from him in some back room, get used to the phrase “President McCain”!
I watched some of McCain’s “let me hang out with the poor” trail. It was absolutely hillarious. Really B-rob, all this fighting aside, you have GOT to catch some of this. He looks like a turd in a punchbowl.
As for doubts about Obama, It’s not Hillary’s fault as to who he hangs out with Rob. and the public has the RIGHT to vet the person who wants to be the most powerful person in the world. Hiding things is just darned wrong, and I know you know that in spite of your Obama preference. And this has just begun because there are more names that haven’t even been touched on yet. The public has every right to know what his actual intentions are in the middle east, beyond hope and change. Should all of this be unpalitable to the public, it is not a “good reason for Hillary not to be in the race”—it would be a good reason for Obama not to be in the race.
Also, Rob, to protect Obama like he’s some kind of Baby Jesus is downright silly. The implication that somebody shouldn’t run against him so he has an easy time of it smacks of some kind of affirmative action. That is not how the real world of politics ..or even the real world in general works. This is not an appointment, it’s an election. People prefer a choice. If Obama can’t convince us Hillary people that he is worthy of our Italian, typical white woman, Catholic, Jewish or Gay vote, it’s nobody’s fault but his own attitude and affiliates.
Well said Uppity…..I would like to add that if Obama was not such an insufferable and PETULANT PILLOW BITER….He might be a better candidate…Well without the corruption….and the racist pastor….oh and the anti-american smug he calls a wife….and an actual work ethic….well this list is becoming a novel….BABY-O is a sham and he’s headed for the abyss…
You are now bordering on silly. No one says she should not run against him. Just don’t try to change the fcuking rules in the middle so that it benefits the candidate, Hillary, who could not take a lead on her own merit. THAT is affirmative action! He is doing just fine playing by the same rules as everyone else . . . and you Hillary backers can’t stand it!
This is SO funny! She thought this was going to be a coronation and instead she has trailed from the get go. Why? Because she UNDERESTIMATED Obama and took her crown for granted. Well BOO FCUKING HOO! Too bad! You snooze, you lose! And no, Warrior Queen, you do not get to make up the rules to your own liking as you go along. This is not day care any more, it’s the real world. If you can’t win under the rules everyone else has to follow, BOW THE FCUK OUT!
I think you missed the salient point. Which is: if you Hillary backers succeed in gaming Obama out of the nomination, what makes you think ANY self respecting Black Obama supporter will vote for Hillary, as opposed to McCain who (a) wouldn’t have ripped off their candidate and (b) is sincerely pursuing their vote?
Novak thinks 25% will cross over; the one expert in the talkingpointsmemo article says 30%; I say a third if not 40%. It will happen if Hillary games this like you folks are advocating . . . as it should.
let’s see, 25% of 12% will cross over to mccain if hillary’s nominated. that’s 3%. even if we take your guess of 40%, that’s 5%.
35% of the other 88% will cross over to mccain if obama’s nominated. that’s 31%.
sorry b-rob, not looking good for your guy.
re president mccain - fine, if the alternative’s obama.
hillary or mccain, no other option.
bye
Hilary can win without 1/3 of the base as she has the other 2/3 of the base….
One of the reasons you Hillary backers make no sense is due to the fact that you haven;t a clue about simple facts. Like:
(a) 36% of voters are registered or claim Dem alliance
(b) 30% rep. the GOP
(c) the rest are independents.
If Hillary loses 25% to 40% of the Black vote, she cannot win. Why? Because (1) that vote goes to McCain, (2) no telling whether the remaining Black voters will stay home, and (3) she is VERY UNPOPULAR AMONG INDEPENDENTS! Much less popular than Obama or McCain, who are tied among independents!
If Hillary is the winnier by hook or by crook, McCain wins. Why? Because independents already hate her, Black people will hate her, and GOPers already hate her. Why do you think the GOP is doing “Operation Chaos”? Because if she wins, THEY win! They know it, Obama voters know it, why can’t you people figure that out?
You think independents will support your candidate once the GoP hacks through him? Laughable… At least Hillary has extra strong support with core democrats and your guy has nothing .. no winning coalition. If he did, he would have won the big states easily now. What makes you think people who did not vote for him now will vote for him in November? Even party loyalists are now being turned off by people like you and Obama’s dirty politics.
Hmm . . . I’m a bit confused. Was that HILLARY who got four more superdelegates on Wednesday? Or was that the guy who supposedly is turning people off with “dirty politics”?
Party loyalists..everyday people who vote democratic.. you know you need them in November to win..people like me. He needed them to win big primaries. Unfortunately he did not get them. Hillary did.
Guys like you and the other bozos on this board are hurting him more than helping him.
You still haven’t answered the question:
if you succeed changing the rules after the fact to give Hillary the nomination, why should any Black Obama supporter vote for her, when McCain will be there REMINDING them that the DNC ripped off the Black candidate who was AHEAD ON MERIT and just handed the nomination to her?
Look, Obama and his minions like you should let DNC change the rules (or whatever it is they have to do to resolve this situation) and count every vote because that is the RIGHT thing to do in a democracy and courageously face the consequence if Hillary were to benefit from that. If it were not for Obama, DNC would have done a face saving ritual and counted those two states. It is not about either of them. There are bigger principles here. As I said before, Obama and you are unfortunately on the wrong side of this issue. If he becomes the nominee without those votes counted, the party will be hurt for a long time. It will be on his head because he can right now tell DNC that he has no objection to count those votes and he is not doing that. That shows his character — it is almost irrelevant who his opponent is.
why should any Black Obama supporter vote for her
’cause they don’y want to starve?
gaming? That is Obama’s strategy. Hillary has earned every single vote (mostly because of who she is as a candidate.) You guys have the media, the big bucks, fanatical support and still can’t eke out a win in a big industrial state — gaming is what he did in all the caucuses. She has reached out to Black voters all through this campaign generously and gracefully. On the other hand, the way he has run his campaign and the way his supporters have behaved, it will be hard to get her supporters to vote for him.
The only way she gets Florida and Michigan delegatse (which she now needs because she ran a fucktarded “only certain states count” campaign as he beat her in 14 straight contests) is to change the rules after the fact. THAT is gaming the system. See my analogy below: it’s like the NCAA passing a “four point basket” rule in the middle of a game.
Obama has taken the lead fair and square and within the rules. I have yet to hear a rational argument as to why the rules should be changed just to benefit the less popular, less talented campaigner, especially after the fact. Nonetheless how you idjuts would sell this to the Black voters who are the loyal (some would say “too loyal”) base of the party.
Read the blog about the rules. What part of it don’t you understand?
The FL and MI issue is not about the candidates, it is about counting votes. DNC can remedy the situation in the interest of true democracy but Obama is blocking it. If you don’t understand that, go live in a third world country — you should not have the privilege of voting.
About that less popular, less talented campaigner, I don’t think you are paying much attention, are you? 200,000+ more people thought she was better than your candidate on Tuesday in PA. Close to 500,000+ people in FL thought she was better. She is 15 points ahead of McCain in MA while your guy struggles to even keep up.. this is MA, we are talking.. What part of it don’t you understand?
Another thing, popularity, talent in campaigning, is this what you are looking for in a person who will be leader of the most powerful country in the world? You must have voted for Bush and looking for a similar guy now.
Less popular in the sense that he has gotten more votes, more delegates, won more states, and raised more money. Other than that, she is WAY ahead!
There is not a single nationwide poll that shows her ahead of Obama and her negatives are stratospherically higher. Wny? Because 63% of people think she is a fcuking liar. And today we have “I never knew anything about Bill pardoning the Weathermen.” What? You were running for the senate in NY and you knew NOTHING about you husband pardoning terrorists who had killed New Yorkers? Does she actually believe her own lies, or just think we are stupid?
As for campaigning, it shows the ability to pick good people, get organized, manage a massive organization and handle money . . . sorta like running the White House. And how is that whole runnig a campaign thing working for you? Let’s ask Mark Penn? What? He’s tied up negotiation a trade agreement with the Shining Path? OK . . . .
Just face facts: when you need you opponant to commit political suicide and agree to an after the fact rule change just to be close, you are done. Shje has run a horrid campaign and he beat her fair and square. Deal with it!
If things are so good for Obama, what are you doing here?
Having fun! And trying to educate you Hill-bots. I’ll say this for Larry: unlike Taylor Marsh, he doesn’t ban you just because you point out the Warrior Queen’s flawed campaign!
trying to educate you Hill-bots
that presume your value. Tsk, tsk.
Poor ego, ran away from home again.
Usually, in back room deals, money is exchanged.
Contibutions to Super-Delagates
since 2005, BO; $710,900 and Senator Clinton; $236,100.
That’s alot of cigar smoke coming from BO.
It is what is is.
Check the SUSA for MA, you will be surprised.
She has run a fine campaign and winning with less money. And that is in the face of adverse media, lying and dirty tactics from the opponent. Her advisers are brilliant — her policy platform is just smart. She has 30+ flag officers supporting her. Murtha, the biggest war critic is supporting her — I guess he was not impressed by Obama’s speech. Her latest idea of a umbrella deterrent is just brilliant — that is the way to isolate rogue countries and reward well behaved states. It is sheer brilliance.
Your candidate would have collapsed if the media and the party elders (funny aside — I just saw a video where Kennedy misspoke and called Obama Osama bin..from the stage — I guess this was well before he endorsed him; they are all using him) had not protected him. He got all those delegates when people did not know about Wright, Ayers or how he felt about clinging people..
We will fight all the way to Denver. Obama cannot win with his delegate math. He will not reach 2025 even if he wins NC and IN. Hillary needs to fight on to the end. She should be the nominee otherwise 4 more years of Republicans.
A vote for Obama is a vote for McCain.
True that Bee….After the general BABY-O will be a foot note and probably won’t get as much space as his favorite pastor…The Good Rev. Wright….
“A vote for Obama is a vote for McCain.”
The only vote for McCain is a vote for McCain.
…shooting a spitball at Jeff…
…ducking and running…
Spitball probably bounced off Jeff’s Pillow….Keep biting Jeff….
A vote for Barack Obama guaranteesa victory for John McCain.
Do you like that better? Better get used to seeing that sentence. That’s my new answer to you.
thanks, beebop, for making that clear enough that an obamaite can understand it. we know they haven’t finished their educations yet.
man, oh man, are they in for an education in november if their guy gets nominated!
“A vote for Barack Obama guaranteesa victory for John McCain.
Do you like that better? Better get used to seeing that sentence. That’s my new answer to you.”
It hasn’t exactly escaped me that you’re only capable of one answer to any given question.
When it is the correct answer, as this is, only one answer is necessary.
I saw the video of the DNC meeting last month where the rep from Florida explained that, even if they could have stopped the republicans from changing the primary date, they had buried that in a bill to require a PAPER TRAIL in the next election. She explained that, given past serious problems with Florida in the last two elections, the Paper Trail was an absolute and there would have been Rachael pitch forks in the street if it didn’t pass. They were foiled.
The next person to speak was the infamous Donna Brazille. Donna told them that Rules are Rules. In other words, Rules come before voter Rights. No kidding. The party rules come before the constitutional right to vote (or even to RE-Vote in Barack Obama’s world of rules). In other words, “screw all 2 million of you and let’s get on with it”. But THEN, Donna told the Florida rep that she would help in ANY way needed with the November election. Go where ever they wanted, do whatever is necessary. Well of course she will. She set the place up for Barack Obama.
And - how does the fact that Harold Ickes signed off on these rules fit with your conspiracy theory, Uppity?
(A primer on actually answering questions: you can start with “Harold Ickes agreed with stripping Michigan and Florida of their delegates because…” Just a suggestion.)
Apples and oranges…the punishment and it’s enforcement are a sham….
While we are discussing people’s words …
“Five months ago Barack Obama personally and publicly declared that he would accept public financing if the Republican nominee did as well. As the McCain campaign moves toward the option of public financing, we hope Senator Obama will keep faith with his pledge to the American people.”
Words? Just words?
You know, Barack has been a veritble gift of silly sayings. After the campaign is over and he’s back teaching in Illinois, someone will have to make a list of them.
My two favorites are:
1. Words, just words?
2. Why can’t I just eat my waffles? This one is probably my favorite of the two because there is a certain Zen nature to it, don’t you think?
I didn’t know Obama was the Democratic nominee! So Hillary has given up her destructive and quixotic quest?
it resonates so nicely alongside his pal and fellow loser kerry’s i was for it before i was against it.
“it resonates so nicely alongside his pal and fellow loser kerry’s i was for it before i was against it.”
Spoken like the Republican you are.
no jeff, not a repub, yet. been a dem all my almost 60 years. family’s been dem back as many generations as there have been dems.
but will definitely vote repub in november if your guy’s nominated.
even us old dogs can learn new tricks.
That was not a conspiracy theory, that was a video of the meeting.
Now fetch me a beer.
Sigh…all my efforts trying to teach you guys how to answer tough questions instead of deflection or taunting seem to have gone to waste.
One more time. See if you can complete the following sentence: “If Barack Obama waged a campaign to “disenfranchise” Michigan and Florida, Hillary Clinton adviser Harold Ickes voted to approve this penalty because…”
Aren’t they fun? It’s like teasing my cat with a tring!
Did you get that beer yet or what?
Have you considered changing your handle to “non sequitir”?
Was odonnaobama fingering her cheek at the same time?
Saw the same video….DONNIDIOT made me sick to my stomach…FL. Dems were held HOSTAGE and Dean the Putz et, al. know it….
Barack need to be stopped and now before it is too late.
The more you know about him the more say hmm.
His mom was never a single-mom, as President Clinton mom was a single-mom.
Obama for one has no respect for the past or the history. Please do not blame him because, he has not read yet. This is not a game. A black man whom, the right to vote or be a presidential canditate, other people fought and die for that gave him the right for him to be what he is today, Obama does should be denail that he denail others.
Clearly both candidates thought that Mi and FL wouldn’t need to count but now they do so they should fess up and say they need to count and do a re-vote. We don’t have a nominee here.
At least HRC realizes that she made a mistake signing whatever pledge it was and that their votes should be counted.
“At least HRC realizes that she made a mistake signing whatever pledge it was”
That’s an interesting assertion, given that she’s never apologized one iota for signing the pledge.
Please read the blogpost!
None of this matters. You know the only thing that matters? Its that Florida and Michigan have ZERO delegates under the rules. You want to change the rules after the fact just to benefit the candidate who is getting her head beaten in by a superior campaign. This not only makes no sense, but it is unfair and would only serve to alienate Black voters, without whom she can’t win.
J in MN Hillary only signed a pledge not to campaign in MI & FL, obama ran a non committed in MI and advertised in FL, for the advertising obama (according to DNC rules) should lose all delegates once they count.
I want to send a message to Donna Brazile.
Massachusetts is going for McCain if barry is the nominee..yes indeedy a vote for barry is a vote for McCain.
How’s that for teaching the Democrats a lesson…
How stupid do Dean and Brazile and the DNC think we are??? (Wait don’t answer that.)
Payback is a bitch!!!!!
The DNC doesn’t realize the this poses real problems for them if they disenfrandises voters in 2 swing states. I’m extremely mad at the leadership of the DNC they should solve this problem before it is too late.
Many are extremely mad and will not for the Democratic nominee come November.
My opinion is this: this isn’t about rules or the candidates, this is about the people voting and they should count all the votes! Duh!
I like this.. Let us enforce these rules!
Why are you Hill-backers refusing to answer this simple question:
“self respecting Black Obama supporter “
I live for the day when you are actually stupid enough to propagandize an AA with those very words face-to-face.
There will be no help for you whatsoever.
And I still don’t hear anyone answer:
I just want the Hillary take on this question.
Brob you obviously know the DNC rules and your playing a dangerous game here kid. This isn’t obamas state politics where he can remove people off the ballot because he likes to play dirty. The American people aren’t going to play his Chicago style politics, and though you want to continue to disenfranchise and lie to people about what is actually going on, if it succeeds the DNC is going to have to worry about much more than 12% of the voting population.
I highly doubt that when the DNC rectifies their deliberate error in discounting all the delegates instead of just 50% of them and people actually find out what is going on, the African Americans who know Hillary and know she will work For ALL will vote for her.
I am not the only one who will leave the Democratic Party if they disenfranchis 2.5 million people and regardless obama will never get my vote, I will vote for McCain. Obama and his little nut jobs have run the sleaziest campaign I have ever had to deal with and you little snot bags have done nothing but degrade a woman who has devoted her entire life to our country and our people. obama wouldn’t be where he is now if it hadn’t been for the help of the msm and the rightwing smear tactics you all have used. You will never get many of us back if obama is the nominee and that is a fact.
An analogy of what Hillary wants:
With Florida and Michigan, it’s like the final two minutes in the NCAA Final Four, with one team up by three. During an officials time out, the NCAA changes the rules establishing a “four point line”, they rescore the game and add 10 point to the team that was trailing by three and give the other team two points.
So instead of being up three points with two minutes to play, the new “four point line” rule means that the team in the lead after 48 minutes of playing under one set of rules is now down by five. And, yes, the team that was trailing under the old rules, but is now ahead under the new rule, thinks that is “fair”. . . .
MICHIGAN: (where you say he is leading)
(CNN) – A top Michigan Democrat reports that negotiators working to pass an 11th-hour plan for a re-vote in the state are increasingly frustrated with Barack Obama’s failure to either embrace the plan currently being considered, or propose an alternative.
Lawmakers are facing mounting pressure this evening to come up with an agreement before the legislature adjourns Thursday for a two-week recess.
“The Obama people are blocking it in the legislature,” the Democratic source tells CNN, who says that the group has repeatedly and unsuccessfully reached out to the campaign for input and cooperation.
The source says that Obama’s campaign has been asked to craft an alternative or to meet with the Clinton campaign to work out an acceptable compromise, but that those requests have been met with silence.
Obama spokesman Bill Burton disputes this account, though the campaign offers no specifics.
Pull your heads out of the huffington ass and get some news from another source — which by the way is totally in the tank for him as well.
FLORIDA: (Talk Left)
I’ll discuss the merits of this in a later post, but I first want to take a moment to consider the shameless hypocrisy of the Obama campaign. Barack Obama is out there having his campaign argue that mail in voting has some type of impact that requires a Voting Rights Act review that could be troubling. That it will take more than a rubber stamp. Let’s be clear, if the implication is this is just filling out a form, then no one would be bringing this up. Even the time frame is not a particular problem. No, Barack Obama is intimating that HE will raise a Voting Rights Act issue about mail in voting.
The SAME Barack Obama who is co-sponsor of the Senate version of this bill, “The Universal Right To Vote By Mail Act”, which declares that NOT ALLOWING mail in voting in every state (28 do through absentee balloting) disenfranchises voters, now opposes a mail in revote. I have heard of chutzpah, but this one takes the cake.
This is not your Koolaideville where people don’t know facts. If you are going to step out, BRING KNOWLEDGE not spin you asshole … and BRING THAT PILLOW BECAUSE YOU WILL BE BITING IT ALOT!
No where in that post did I see ANYTHING about (a) Obama backers refusing to hold a vote on a plan; (b) Obama backers voting against a plan; or (c) Obama saying anything about any plan. He said the same thing all along: its up to the DNC.
See, this is what’s funny! Hillary runs a shitty campaign, now she wants HIM to help her change the rules to bail HER out?! And what would he get in return? A pat on the head from Miss Daisy?! Nice!
You still haven’t explained one thing: if Hillary gets the nomination because of an after the fact change in rules, what makes you think any self-respecting Black voter would pull the lever for her? The condescending entitlement mentality that make you people think they WOULD back her after all this b.s. is the same entitlement mentality that HAS HER LOSING THIS RACE! She has run a dumb campaign based on idiotic assumptions, yet still thinks she is owed the nomination! What fcuking gall!
none so blind as they who will not see.
Not see what? Just face the fact: she has guaranteed she will not be president! She can’t beat him straight up and if she gets the DNC to change the rules for her, McCain will get 40% of the Black vote with a like number staying home and watching American Idol. It’s over, one way or another . . . and it couldn’t have happened to a nicer gal!
I am getting tired of the misperception people seem to have of Obama supporters.
No, we are not all blacks, and not all “Kids”.
I am a 50+ white woman, and I was on the younger side of the Passover Seder I attended. There were about 45 people men and women, and I was pleasantly surprised that they were ALL OBAMA SUPPORTERS.
I didn’t expect that, as I know some of the women are feminists, members of NOW, and like I, donors to Emily’s List in the past.
You are not who I am talking to. I am trying to get these people to comprehend what would happen to the party if Obama got ripped off. If she overtakes him by winning the 54% to 60% that she apparently needs to get ahead, fine. I doubt Black people mind losing on the merits to a superior foe. (Just read WEB Du Bois and others discussing support for civil service exams.) It is when the rules are changed after the fact, behind closed doors, with people smiling in your face as they stab you in the back for one of “their own” . . . .
Hillary appears to be willing to ruin the party for her own benefit. And I am not sure her backers recognize that that is what she is about to do.
Sorry, - what I didn’t express, that lots of people like me, whites, not youngsters, would feel equally violated if the Super delegates would fall for some manipulation and take the nomination away from Obama
Brob you obviously know the DNC rules and your playing a dangerous game here kid. This isn’t obamas state politics where he can remove people off the ballot because he likes to play dirty. The American people aren’t going to play his Chicago style politics, and though you want to continue to disenfranchise and lie to people about what is actually going on, if it succeeds the DNC is going to have to worry about much more than 12% of the voting population.
I highly doubt that when the DNC rectifies their deliberate error in discounting all the delegates instead of just 50% of them and people actually find out what is going on, the African Americans who know Hillary and know she will work For ALL will vote for her.
I am not the only one who will leave the Democratic Party if they disenfranchis 2.5 million people and regardless obama will never get my vote, I will vote for McCain. Obama and his little nut jobs have run the sleaziest campaign I have ever had to deal with and you little snot bags have done nothing but degrade a woman who has devoted her entire life to our country and our people. obama wouldn’t be where he is now if it hadn’t been for the help of the msm and the rightwing smear tactics you all have used. You will never get many of us back if obama is the nominee and that is a fact.
See, this is what’s funny! Hillary runs a shitty campaign
First off, and I was an Obama supporter before the fall of last year, even donated to him, until his wife began injecting the race card into the campaign.
Second, the race turned around when Obama surrogates fuelled the race bait issue in NH by Michelle and before SC, the one most disgusting thing done throughout this entire campaign, visa vie memos and Michelle big mouth, something that no matter what is said by Clinton’s was baited on further by Obama surrogates and completely diverted this entire race!
Reality is Obama is the slimiest of politicians and after his campaigns and Michelle’s invoking words in NH, I would definately vote Republican over an Obama candidate every chance I can and have convinced many friends on that same one issue, because it is the lowest form of disgusting politics especially against the people they used it against!
So you won’t vote for him? OK. One GOPer insider estimates that 15% of white voters simply won’t vote for a Black person. At least the flat out racists will admit that. Its the more subtle racists (especially White liberals) who make up all kinds of excuses for acting the same way ask the Klansmen . . . he’s a Muslim, his reverend . . . since when do you select a presidential candidate based on what THEIR WIFE SAID? What bullshit!
Why not just say “I have pretended all along that I am not racist, but I really am.” Hey, I have dealt with my own latent homophobia; why can’t you acknowledge your racist demons? Instead of telling me how open minded you were?
b-rob, obama supporters enjoy saying that those who vote against him are racist. i’m sure there are some, just as there are some obama supporters who won’t vote for hillary because she’s a woman.
most who won’t vote for obama feel this way because he’s a contemptible jerk.
however, assuming arguendo that the obamaites’ complaint that people won’t vote for him because he’s black were true - that doesn’t help him. the point is they won’t vote for him. whether it’s his race, his ears, his ugly suits, his stupid policies, his snobby attitudes, his inability to bowl, his lack of class, whatever, it doesn’t matter.
now if that number is 15% as you say, that means landslide loss. which is what we’ve been telling you.
pm317, I could not let this go:
Then I have a proposal for a new rule. Flip a coin. Heads Obama gets 60% of the delegates from Florida and Michigan, tails the Warrior Queen gets the bulk. Fair?
This is one of the most bogus self serving arguments I have heard in a long time. You Hill-bots care nothing about “disenfranchisement”; you are more than happy to disenfranchise those who did not vote because there were no delegates at stake. And Hillary’s Florida contingent, led by Debbie Wasserman Schultz OPPOSED revoting, which would have permitted everyone who did not vote in January to vote this time. No, you have no interest in “democracy”; indeed, those votes have been counted to the extent they were supposed to be counted under the rules. What you are seeking is a bailout, an artificial change in the rules do that Hillary, who has run a horrid campaign, gets to compete on a level she has not deserved.
Not even close. The rules are on his side, the common sense is on his side, and the equities are on his side. See, if you had been arguing “revote”, you would have a better moral argument. but as soon as she went with “let the votes be heard” and this weeks “if you exclude the caucus states and add in the states that got no delegates, I am ahead” argument, you made very clear that she was all about her own advantage, NOT democracy.
If she becomes the nominee through an after the fact rule change that hands an undeserved margin to her, the party is done. You will have shown minorities that you don’t respect their candidates or their votes, especially when a favored White candidate runs a crappy campaign that puts her behind.
There is neither a moral nor logical argument that supports changing the rules in the middle of the contest to benefit only one candidate. Obama, Edwards, Kuch . . . everyone KNEW there were no delegates at stake in those states. Rerun it? Fine. Forget them both? Serves them right. But hand her an undeserved victory over a superior Black candidanye after the crappy campaign she has won? How in the hell is that fair? This is John McCain’s wet dream: that the Dems rip off Obama and hand the nomination to Hillary!
I am not a hill-bot. I just think she is a better candidate for November and for the country and I will defend my support for her with reason and logic any day.
I guess you don’t understand — FL and MI is not about her (last time I say that) and I stand by every word I wrote.
I come from a third world country where thugs and corrupted people run and win elections — nobody takes it seriously. I fell in love with this country because of its elevated political discourse and democratic system. I even gave up my own citizenship to adopt this country. But what happened in 2000 and 2004 disappointed me no end; still, I could blame republicans for it. Now you and your candidate have brought that same corruption into this democracy and to my party and I won’t stand for it.
Standing in the way of counting every vote is corruption, just to name one thing. There are others. But I have no patience in educating you morons.
The votes have all been counted. They just didn’t come with any delegates.
You are trying to change the rules after the fact to benefit your underachieving candidate; common sense, ethics, and morality are the only things standing in your way. Well, good! If Hillary had run a halfway decent campaign, she wouldn’t be in this mess, would she? Well her inability to strategize, manage money, and pick good people does not mean Obama is responsible for bailing her out.
What the hell are you talking about?
She has run a fine campaign and winning with less money. And that is in the face of adverse media, lying and dirty tactics from the opponent. Her advisers are brilliant — her policy platform is just smart. She has 30+ flag officers supporting her. Murtha, the biggest war critic is supporting her — I guess he was not impressed by Obama’s speech. Her latest idea of a umbrella deterrent is just brilliant — that is the way to isolate rogue countries and reward well behaved states. It is sheer brilliance. She is scary smart and after 8 years of Bush, it will be a change to have somebody that smart in the WH running the country — No, I am not impressed with your candidate’s smartness. In fact, if it were not for affirmative action and legacy seats, I doubt he would have gone to Harvard.
I have visited third world countries where even the traffic was chaotic, and people didn’t observe the rules.
But here it is preferred to go by some rules so everybody knows where they stand. I guess you are finding that out here.
This is such an inane argument anyway, even if you count the Florida votes, it doesn’t put her ahead.
And BTW, I found the people in the Third World polite, unlike you who called me a moron, without knowing anything about me.
You sound bitter…
I guess everything I wrote before just went over your head, I guess. So moron is a good description.
Bitter, nah.. I am having fun. I am not even clinging to my gun (I don’t have one), or religion (an atheist), antipathy toward people who are not like me (yes! that would be people you),…
Well, I have a life,and don’t sit here all day long reading every repetitious, hate filled attacks uttered by desperate people.
I too am having fun at the end of the day for 15 minutes, and check in to see how everybody is boiling over.
To my surprise, I have more in common with you than I would have expected…but that’s another story
I keep asking the same questions and get no answers:
Explain to me how it is fair to change the rules after the fact to benefit just one candidate . . . because that is what you are proposing. Why have rules in the first place if they will be changed just because one candidate underperforms her expectations?
Please explain to me how it is fair to hand the nomination to a candidate who has NOT SHOWN SHE CAN OUTPOLL THE LEAD CANDIDATE! How is she “more electable” than him for the national if she needs an after the fact rule change to beat him in the primaries?
And most importantly . . . please explain how a party with a sizeable minority population changes the rules after the fact to benefit the White candidate, who trails in votes, delegates, states won, and money raised?
Mark my words: if you Hill-bots succeed in changing the rules of the game and Obama is not the nomination, the message sent to minorities is “No matter how hard you work, how much money you raise, or how many votes you get, you are second class to White candidates and we wll find a way to have them prevail over you.” Trust me on this: that message is already out there . . . .
If he loses in the general, so be it. He will have lost fair and square. But if you succeed in ripping him off, kiss the Black votes goodbye!
Stupid Obamabots do not know how to read. This explains why Obama won the Southern states and all the states with high obesity rates.
Of the five thinnest states — 2007 numbers — . . . wanna guess who they voted for?
Hawaii — O
Colo — O
Mass — H
Vt. — O
Conn. — O
But what is funny . . . the uneducated mouth breathers vote Hillary! Hill-bots are so fcuking dumb . . . .
You’ve become as annoying as a nest of wasps. Maybe Larry can be moved to change his policies and banish you and you’re incredibly stupid posts.
You’re tiresome. Small minded. Intellectually dishonest and a putz.
And I can only imagine that you have turned your pillow into feathers.
Buh=bye boy chick
Bee
why do you call someone stupid who gives you information and facts?
“But what is funny . . . the uneducated mouth breathers vote Hillary! Hill-bots are so fcuking dumb . . . .”
This is what I love. When these Obama supporters say stuff like this. Everytime they do, another Hillary supporter is born.
Cut & Paste people. Send them to the DNC. The above is among the many reasons why Obama will have to:
WIN WITHOUT ME!
Sauvage
This is news…
I thought demographically the Hillary supporters were supposed to be less educated…
It’s news to you because it is BULLSHIT!
PamFlorida, I agree with you. I will leave the Democratic Party if Florida and Michigan are not seated. If Nader is on the ballot I will vote for him. Never for Obama, because he is the one who made the campaign personal and mysogynistic. The media has just followed his lead. I don’t watch TV anymore and I won’t buy newspapers and magazines. I urge every woman to boycott the media for the way they have treated the first woman to run for president.
IT will look bad for the Dems if HRC doesn’t get the nomin w.o Mi and Fl counting and that would be bad as well. I could voe for BO if all states are counted but if the disenfrandise 2 states, the DNC should be ashamed of themself!
WE THE REPUBLICANS ARE VERY SMART, IN FACT WE CAN DO WHATEVER WE WANT WITH YOU GUYS ‘THE DEMOCRATS’ OR THE DUMPOCRATS
WE KNEW FROM THE BEGINNING YOUR HUNGER FOR THE WHITE HOUSE, SO WE CREATED A LITTLE MESS JUST LIKE IN 2000 IN FLORIDA.
WE CHANGED THE RULES AS WE KNOW YOU GUYS WILL HAVE INTERNAL FIGHT AND THE OUTCOME FOR US BEING DISENFRANCHISED SUPPORTERS, EVENTHOUGH WE FUCKED UP IN IRAQ, AFGHANISTAN AND ELSEWHERE, FUCKED UP YOUR HOUSES, MORTGAGES, HIKED UP THE PRICE OF OIL AND ABOVE ALL FUCKED THE ECONOMY, YOU STILL WILLING TO VOTE FOR OUR BELOVED HERO ‘JOHN MCAIN’
WHO WILL FINISH OF THE JOB OUR PRESIDENT HIS HIGHENESS BUSH HASNT FINISHED OR DO THE SAME
REPUBLICAN COMPANIES WILL PROSPER, REPUBLICAN MILLIONAIRES WILL BECOME BILLIONAIRES
ONCE AGAIN, WE SHOWED HOW SMART WE REPUBLANS ARE
I GARETEE YOU DUMPOCRATS ONE THING, EITHER OBAMA OR CLINTON SUPPORTERS WILL SUPPORT US, LEAVING YOU WITH EMPTY HANDS
AND ONE MORE LITTLE PROMISE, VOTE COUNTED OR NOT COUNTED IN FLORIDA, THEY ARE STILL IN OUR HANDS
SO BACK THE FUCK OF DUMPOCRATS,
Lord, the Obomabot trolling has went dowhill.