The Trail: A Daily Diary of Campaign 2008

No way that Obama will allow Clinton's Mitchell to negotiate this thing. Bought and paid for.

"SeedofChange:

I know that Clinton supporters tend to be fairly loose with the truth, but you ARE aware that Obama has won more states than Clinton? You're aware that no state in the entire country has 50% black population? You're aware that he's won blue states, purple states and red states by now? You're aware that he's won both caucus states and primary states right?

I mean, there were so many things factually wrong with your previous post that you're either a blatant liar or someone who is woefully uninformed about the current state of the Democratic primary.

Posted by: jcrozier1 "

Stop the exaggeration.

He did "win" a red state.

He won in a caucus (far less demographically representative than an primary election)where partisans of a candidate can easily flood the proceeding. That is NOT the state as a whole since the participants were Dems voting for Dems.

He did NOT "win" a 'red state" by election as he would have to do in the general. Those were Dems voting for Dems.

ALl this red state-blus state garabge is just that -meaningless garbage. All those red states have Dems living there. It is jjust that they are outnumbered by the Republican voters who will cream him in a general. Every 4 years the red states have a Dem primary or caucus and with the states he has 'won', every 4 yeras for the past 1-4 elections, the Dems have gotten clobbered there, So what if he does well in a red state Dem Caucus? (And Dem caucus-driven candidates have this really nasty habit of getting obliterated in the general election.)

The more important thing is whether a candidate is reaching the braod demographics of the Dem party (and where permitted to vote, independents) in a ballot election (gives a larger sample.)

And so far, based on that criteria, Obama is falling woefully short.

A possible solution for Florida:

By a strange coincidence, Clinton won exactly half of the delegates (105 out of 210). If the 38 Edwards' delegates vote for Obama (giving Obama a total of 105 delegates), Florida can be seated and still have no impact on who wins the nomination.

Of course, this still leaves Michigan...

1. Rules are rules. Super Delegates should be able to vote. Most of them would have been elected delegates if they had not already been delegates.

2. Edwards and Obama removed their names from the Michigan Ballot. This may have helped them in getting more votes in Iowa.

3. In 2000 and 2008 McCain was being helped by the liberal media to get the Republican Nomination to try to stop a true conservative from being nominated. The intention being to turn on him after the nomination to help the Democrat get elected.

The problem for them now is that since they built him up, they can't start knocking him down without having the Democratic Candidate.

As the weeks and months go by, all the adulation he received from the media is going to stay there.

People may even get to like the idea of voting for the maverick Republican.

4. Forget about all the talk about Hillary not being supported if she gets the nomination even with Michigan and Florida delegates being seated.

There is only one thing worse than murder. That is the selling of pardons. And everyone seems to have given the Clintons a pass on that.

All of this Florida/Michigan nonsense won't really matter anyway because Obama is most likely going to beat Hillary by a large margin for a month in the next NINE states before Ohio/TX.

And everyone knows that the liberal media is part of the cult that is Obama. They will definitely put some extra spin on things as Obama being unstoppable and inevitable after this long string of victories in February.

All of this Obama momentum (both real and manufactured by the media) will be too much for Hillary to overcome by the time Ohio finally rolls around....kinda like what happened to Giuliani when he failed to win for a month and all the press was negative.

This is a royal mess for Democrats. Super delegates have extraordinary influence over result even more than the 19% number of total delegates. That is because many states are roughly splitting their popular vote and their regular delegates are split evenly.

You also have an extraordinary situation happening in DC when it might vote 90% - 10% for Obama, but 11 of the DC superdelegates have already pledged to Clinton. Super delegates are cronies, past Clinton administration officials and are negating the effects of the popular vote. It is a train wreck and one group or the other is going to feel VERY DISENFRANCHISED.

Leave it to the Dems to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory because of shady deals.

Many good arguments here. For, against, compromising, compassionate, passionate. May I interject my thoughts? My dear
democratic friends. This dispute would not have come about, at this time, if one of your nominees had not "conveniently" brought it
to national attention. You said little when you allowed our state democratic committee to move your primary/caucus forward against the objections of the national democratic committee. The DNC acted wisely in allowing you state democratic committee time to reconsider their action. Your state democratic committee chose to ignore your national committees
warning. Subsequently, your states were penalized by the DNC.
You accepted the consequences admirably back then. Now, at
the prompting of one of the nominees, you voice your opinions.
Before you continue, think carefully about that persons motivation. I have, and I personally don't like it. Like most of you, I've been a parent. I've instilled in my children the lesson
each action involves consequences. They are adults now but,
some still try "triangulating". Sorry, still won't work. :)

Enough with the sexist comments! The sexist comments of pundits that are going unchecked is disgusting, Here are nine years that I am not voting for Obama that they ignore:
) Obama voted against--and Clinton voted for--an amendment that would have placed a 30% cap on the interest rate that could be charged on any extension of credit. FactCheck.org on 2008 Congressional Black Caucus Dem. Debate Jan 21, 2008

2) One of Obama's stands troubling to progressives is on gay marriage. In the Senate debate, Obama opposed the right-wing Federal Marriage Amendment to ban gay marriage nationally and said: "I agree with most Americans, with Democrats and Republicans, with Vice President Cheney, with over 2,000 religious leaders of all different beliefs, that decisions about marriage, as they always have, should be left to the states." However, Obama also declared, "Personally, I do believe that marriage is between a man and a woman." The Improbable Quest, by John K. Wilson, p.114-115 Oct 30, 2007

3) "While the evidence tells me that the death penalty does little to deter crime, I believe there are some crimes--mass murder, the rape and murder of a child--so heinous that the community is justified in expressing the full measure of its outrage by meting out the ultimate punishment."The Audacity of Hope, by Barack Obama, p. 58 Oct 1, 2006

3) Obama voted "present" nearly 130 times, rather than casting a yes or no vote, an option in the state Legislature. Obama says some of his votes were part of intricate parliamentary maneuvering, not just avoiding political heat. The NY Times found a mixed record: "Sometimes the 'present' votes were in line with instructions from Democratic leaders or because he objected to provisions in bills that he might otherwise support. But in at least a few cases, the issue was politically sensitive."FactCheck.org

4) ""In Obama's eight years in the Illinois Senate, almost 2/3 of the money he raised for his campaigns came from political action committees, corporate contributions, unions, and many other corporate interests." You now talk about, "Well, I'm not taking any money from lobbyists." You do take money from state lobbyists. You took $1.5 million from federal employees who work for federal lobbying firms. There seems to be a real inconsistency between the amount of money you raise and where it's coming from, and your rhetoric." -Boston globe. EX: Robert Wolf, COO of the Switzerland-based UBS Investment Bank, who raised money for Obama to the tune of $194,930. FactCheck.org Among his top fundraisers are at least a few who were registered lobbyists as recently as last year.-factchecker.org

5) Clinton charged that Obama's position has shifted on health care, from favoring a single-payer, universal system when he was a Senate candidate to the plan he favors now, which has no requirement. Obama denied that he had ever said he would work to get a single-payer plan, saying, "I never said that we should try to get single-payer. I said that if I were starting from scratch, I would probably go with a single-payer system."
But Obama's denial doesn't hold up. In a speech in June 2003, Obama said: "I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer health care program. I see no reason why the US cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. A single-payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. And that's what I'd like to see."

Source: FactCheck.org on 2008 Congressional Black Caucus Dem. Debate Jan 21, 2008

6) Obama's ad touting his health care plan quotes phrases from newspaper articles and an editorial, but makes them sound more laudatory and authoritative than they actually are.
It attributes to The Washington Post a line saying Obama's plan would save families about $2,500. But the Post was citing the estimate of the Obama campaign and didn't analyze the purported savings independently.
It claims that "experts" say Obama's plan is "the best." "Experts" turn out to be editorial writers at the Iowa City Press-Citizen-- who, for all their talents, aren't actual experts in the field.
Source: FactCheck.org: AdWatch of 2008 campaign ad, "Interest" Jan 3, 2008

7) The best available information says that Obama's healthcare plan would leave between 8.5 million uninsured, up to 18 million people uninsured if Obama has no individual mandates.
Source: FactCheck.org on 2007 Democratic debate in Las Vegas Nov 15, 2007

8) On the 2003 Illinois National Organization for Women questionnaire in which Obama wrote that he would vote to "repeal the Patriot Act" or replace it with a "new, carefully crafted proposal." When it came time to reauthorize the law in 2005, though, Obama voted in favor of it. He started out opposing it: In Dec. 2005, Obama voted against ending debate--a position equivalent to declaring a lack of support for the measure. Then in February of that year, Obama said on the floor that he would support th Patriot Act's reauthorization. Source: FactCheck.org on 2008 Facebook/WMUR-NH Democratic debate Jan 5, 2008

9) Sen. Obama rewrote history when he defended his controversial remarks about invading Pakistan if necessary to eliminate al Qaeda, saying, "I did not say that we would immediately go in unilaterally. What I said was that we have to work with [Pakistan's President Pervez] Musharraf."
That's not exactly what he said. Obama is referring to an Aug. 1 policy address, in which he made no direct mention of working with Musharraf. Instead, he said he would "take out" al Qaeda if Musharraf failed to act.

Obama (Aug. 1):
I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will.
Source: FactCheck.org on 2007 AFL-CIO Democratic primary forum Aug 7, 2007

The people of both states (Florida and Michigan)voiced their wishes with their vote and with their feet. So what is the problem? The only one to canvas in Florida was Obama who ran nationwide adds there.Nobody did in Michigan but Obama urged his supporters to vote there for "other"after he took his name off the ballot. Every move of his was just as calculated as Hillary's, the only difference was that Hillary won in both states.So now Obama is left with trying to change the outcome.
If the Demo's take away the Florida result they will be as bad as the Bush crowd in 2000. It is not going to happen if they expect to win in November.They cannot insult the demos who supported Hillary by over half a million votes and expect them to go to the polls again and vote for Obama in Nov.
As for a caucus. Why? the people already voted so they know what the people want. A caucus will only satisfy those who lost in the primary. What useful purpose will that serve? It will be seen as an effort to over ride the will of the people who voted en mass for Hillary.

Also To kajzarjev:

There are things in Obama's background that serve him well. For example, his early experiences working with issues of poverty and in teaching Constitutional law are important parts of a foundation that have been sorely lacking in our current president. In ten years as a legislator at the state and federal level, I believe he has developed considerable mastery of issues across the gamut of domestic and foreign policy, though, like most recent presidents, he is more experienced on domestic issues. (Some may recall that earlier in the campaign, he was criticized by some for speaking in too much detail about policy matters.) Still, one has to admit that based soley on his resume, it is a bit of a leap to elect him from his current position to the presidency. But for some reason, he has convinced me to make that leap. It is often said that people pick a candidate they connect with and only then summon rational arguments to support their feeling. I think this is true- and it's not always a bad thing. I have read Obama's books and listened to him for the past year. I am very impressed by him in his intellecutual substance, judgement, integrity, and yes, his inspirational words. He seems to view the world in ways that make sense to me and that I value. I cannot remember saying that about another presidential candidate in my lifetime. There are leadership intangibles that he posesses that are not just fluff, but will be part of what helps him move the country forward.

Hillary is also very smart and knows her policy issues. She has a few more years in the Senate, was first lady of the United States and Arkansas, and worked as a corporate lawyer, including some pro bono work in the public interest. In these, she does have more experience in public life than Obama, but not by as much as people say. And, of course, with her positives Hillary carries negatives that are undeniable to even her supporters. From the public, she has legitimately earned both admiration and distrust, and is often the subject of both reasoned and wildly irrational criticism. Fair or unfair, I believe these factors will hamper her electability and her effectiveness as president, the only question is to what degree.
To me, that represents a clear choice.

I agree wholeheartedly with MShaughn's arguments. You simply can't go back and say it was a valid election after all. And I'll add that to argue otherwise is pure sophistry and deceit.

Later caucuses, maybe, that would be the way to go, why not? Just give candidates time to mount a campaign.

But you can't just validate an election after you told everyone it wasn't going to count. It's preposterous, absurd, unfair, wrong, and just plain crazy.

Oh my, what a mess.

As for the primaries, it was silly for FLA and Michigan to defy the rules, but equally silly for DNC to completely disenfranchise voters in those states. The republicans penalized half the delegates which was probably the better approach. It is foolish to have a few states wield disproportionate influence by always coming before the rest, but there are channels for those concerns.

Now, however, those primaries cannot be counted, not only to apply the rules etc., but also because they are not fair measures of the electorates. If the electorate is told the votes won't count, some will still vote, but many will not. Many may not even pay attention. You can't forbid candidates from actually meeting voters, talking to them, fielding their questions, addressing their concerns etc. and then call it a fair contest, even if many voters have seen them on TV or in the newspaper. You can't forbid the candidates from coordinating get out the vote drives, rallies, or any staple of a modern election and call it all good. Elections turn on such events and are not valid without them. Maybe Hillary would have won FLA by 30% or more anyway, but we cannot know that and should not assume it after the fact.

Votes are precious things, but for better or worse, primaries are more about the parties fielding candidates for the general election than they are about the one man, one vote principle of equality for all (including women). Consider the super delegate system, put in place to give the party elders the means to deflect rogue candidates who are not seen as reflecting party values. Under the rules, super delegates absolutely can derail the nomination even of a viable candidate who has won a majority of pledged delegates, but most times they would do so at great peril. In this election, it would alienate huge numbers of voters who are likely to protest in the general election by staying home or voting for McCain, a moderate republican whom many of them like anyway.

Clawrence35, according to the latest counts, she is now less than 200 popular votes ahead of Obama. She was behind him in popular votes before Super Tuesday, that is true. But, we are talking here about the woman, who has been screaming all obver the country about her incoming inevitable presidency within almost fifteen last years, against almost unknown US junior senator. So, this arithmetics is still on Obama's behalf, is it not?

Come on, people, get a grip! Clinton, who has been screaming within almost sixteen years through all available and unavailable media channels that she is inevitably the next president of the USA, has after Super Tuesday two delegates less and only two handred (or less) more popular votes than Obama has. Obama has been really known by now only in Illinois. There has been no advertisement in Illinois, where I am residing, and Obama won this state with the big landslide. Hillary has been known all over the country for fifteen plus years. And she has this scarce majority of popular votes, and minority of delegates. She was born in Illinois, she was brought up here, she was considering Chicago Public School System to be her favorite pet within the entire Clintons' co-presidency. And she has lost this state with the landslide. THE ONLY STATE, WHERE OBAMA IS REALLY KNOWN BY HIS ACTIONS. Doesn't it give the real prospective of who is who in this race? Of course, it does! Michigan and Florida should have their caucasuses in June or July to participate in democratic primary. This is the only fair ans square solution.

leslie anne conover

Take your Midol and hopefully your PMS lunatic raving will be better in the morning. Deranged, nasty skanks like you are the face of Clinton Land. Put on a spunk splatterd blue dress and relax.

To kajzarjev -- I appreciate your interest in our election. We are all globally connected and your post pays tribute to that fact. Having lived in Europe many years myself, I too have an appreciation for elections elsewhere.

As I also saw in Europe, many times intangibles play an important role. Although I felt, especially in the last debate, that Obama displayed a grounding in policy that, yes, was not as extensive as Clinton's, yet certainly showed a strong grasp of the important issues. What strikes many in America I believe is Obama's ability to spark a belief again in our greatness, after so many years of malaise and shame. That is no small matter. It was the appeal of Reagan (although I was no great fan) after the general despondency of the late '70's. I think with all respect to you that, as I would not be able to emotionally respond to the conditions of your country's collective soul, you may not fully understand the enormous desire among many of us to radically change the catastrophic direction Bush placed us on. So though Clinton may be more knowledgeable on the issues facing us, Obama is more cognizant of the desires compelling us. But either way, Clinton or Obama will be a much welcome change.

No one ran ads in IL - how is that any different than in FL?

Obama knows a lot about ballot access and disenfranchising voters - he won his first political office by using the old Chicago trick of knocking any opponents off the ballot - so he and his supporters come off as a little hypocritical to me.

And the idea that he is going to be competitive in the general election in states like Alaska, Idaho, N. Dakota, Kansas, or S. Carolina is laughable.

Let the majority rule. Add up all the votes of all the voters who participated in a Democratic primary, regardless of were they live, and whom ever received the greatest number of votes should get the nomination.

As far as MI, let them hold a primary in April or May and decide how they want to seat their delegates - the party is supposedly raising huge sums of money that we shouldn't be concerned about not being competitive with the Republicans in the general election. The rank and file membership of Democrats in states like MI and FL are too important for the petty 'super-delegates' to be given a say while ignoring those who have made this party. The DNC failed to resolve this issue that has been festering for far too long, and now they need to come up with a solution to allow different states in all regions of the country to have a say and forget the disproportionate influence of NH and Iowa. This would strengthen the state party's - and a lottery system at this convention that decided the order of state primaries would best serve the Democratic Party to avoid this from happening four years from now.

At the end of the Super Tuesday - no matter how many states were won - Senator Clinton won more votes than did Obama. That is the simple truth.

No one ran ads in IL - how is that any different than in FL?

Obama knows a lot about ballot access and disenfranchising voters - he won his first political office by using the old Chicago trick of knocking any opponents off the ballot - so he and his supporters come off as a little hypocritical to me.

And the idea that he is going to be competitive in the general election in states like Alaska, Idaho, N. Dakota, Kansas, or S. Carolina is laughable.

Let the majority rule. Add up all the votes of all the voters who participated in a Democratic primary, regardless of were they live, and whom ever received the greatest number of votes should get the nomination.

As far as MI, let them hold a primary in April or May and decide how they want to seat their delegates - the party is supposedly raising huge sums of money that we shouldn't be concerned about not being competitive with the Republicans in the general election. The rank and file membership of Democrats in states like MI and FL are too important for the petty 'super-delegates' to be given a say while ignoring those who have made this party. The DNC failed to resolve this issue that has been festering for far too long, and now they need to come up with a solution to allow different states in all regions of the country to have a say and forget the disproportionate influence of NH and Iowa. This would strengthen the state party's - and a lottery system at this convention that decided the order of state primaries would best serve the Democratic Party to avoid this from happening four years from now.

At the end of the Super Tuesday - no matter how many states were won - Senator Clinton won more votes than did Obama. That is the simple truth.

I am not American but follow this race with great interest and I am, as a huge majority of the Europeans is, in favour of the Democratic nominee for your next President. Like both Obama and HRC but can't help wondering, what is so galvanising about Obama figure that some people makes really "crazy" and ready to follow the "preacher"? It was so obvious at the debates I followed that HRC has something to tell and Obama usually sticks to his general, although very well communicated, but empty phrases on change and hope. That's all empty talk to me, unfortunately so common among many politicians on the continent I am coming from. It is not the rhetoric and pose that should decide the winner in this US election. It did in a past and it's not pretty. Please do not make the same mistake again...

I think we should wait and burn this bridge when we get to it.

"princeofwisdom" would be more persuasive if he, or it, would learn to spell.

Less amusing, though!

"princeofwisdom" would be more persuasive if he, or it, would learn to spell.

Now, Hillary is the one with all the Experience, whose strong point is that she understands how the Rules work, right?

Right.

And therefore....

The Parties make their rules. They may be, and usually are, stupid, but they are the rules.

The candidates are required to play by the rules, however arbitrary the rules may be.

So let's just enforce the rules. And not quibble about who they are unfair to. They're probably unfair to everybody in one way or another.

But they're the rules the parties agreed to.

Too late to back out.

Sob, sob!

Time Magazine's numbers wizard Jackson Dykman has come up with the most fascinating bit of data on Super Tues (Feb 5):

"I have re-done my calculations with the latest vote totals as of 4:30 p.m. February 6, 2008 , and guess what?

The raw numbers grew a bit, but the percentages are exactly the same.

Clinton: 50.2% (7,427,942)
Obama: 49.8% (7,370,023)

Now keep in mind, this is just among those voting for Obama or Clinton. If you add in Edwards and Uncommitted, etc., the percentages would change slightly, but the point is the same. That breakdown looks like this:

Clinton: 48.7%
Obama: 48.4%
Edwards: 2.7%
Uncommitted: 0.17%
Biden: 0%
Richardson: 0%%

princeofwisdom: Hey, oh wise one: haven't you caught on yet? THE FLORIDA AND MICHIGAN BALLOTS DON'T COUNT!

Got it?

I fear in reading many of these comments that the emotional energy many of us feel (justifiably) in response to the Bush years is being turned inwards. I'm also galvanized by the prospect of change. Yet this intraparty vitriol risks alienating the supporters of whichever candidate loses the nomination, potentially handing the election to the republicans. I, for one, fear that most of all, especially since a Supreme Court justice will likely be chosen in this next term. The nomination needs to be decided fairly and expeditiously, or else we prolong an increasingly bitter nominating process that threatens a splintering of the party. All our passion would be spent on the wrong election. Both Clinton and Obama are supremely more competent, compassionate and enlightened than Mr. McCain -- it's important for us to remember that and save our energy for the general election. That being said, I beseech Howard Dean to avoid at all costs the nomination devolving into a victory for the most politically connected or powerful. I do not envy his position, but my cynical side also fears the Clintons' capacity to employ their considerable political influence in the DNC to parlay those votes into delegates. If this does occur, I feel certain that, as many have expressed here, those oh so important and passionate Obama supporters will be hard to find come November.

"I thik that's an insult to the voters of Florida."

It is virtually impossible to insult the voters of Florida. Remember the last few elections? Morons is too mild. Brain dead is ageist. How about, oh well, the Post won't print it!

and to d_money the poster above me. I don't think Donna Braze is an Obama supporter and she wasn't saying she doesn't support super delegates. I think what she was saying that if it came down toe the convention and the choice, just because of the way the elections ended up, came down to the super delegates then she would leave the party. she's just saying one way or the other the people should decide and it won't look good for "just" 700 people, elected officials or not, to choose the candidate.

"A lot of the anti Clinton comments are to put it mildy, vile!"

Hey, baby; you ain't heard NOTHIN' yet! Heard the one about Bill and the Page and the Cigar??

for one Thing, as a Clinton supporter I do hope they resolve this issue well before the convention, because if she does win the nomination at the convention before this, I'll be the first to admit it won't look good. That said Obama supporters are sounding real funny now.

for one nobody told Obama and Edwards to remove their names from the ballots of MI. that's just something they did of their own accord. Sucks for them that they got destroyed in that state but once again they didn't have to remove their names.

in Florida, he lost plain and simple. He says that voters didn't know him, but I thik that's an insult to the voters of Florida. People aren't so stupid or naive that they don't want national news channels. He was able to win several super Tuesday States in places I know he didn't even set foot in, so it has nothing to do about him being there.

If Obama HAD one MI and FL, I guarantee he would be trying to seat those delegates, talking about some will of the people junk and I guarantee his supporters would be crying foul if they weren't seated. Like it or not Clinton won those votes and whether she won it on pure name recognition or whatever it doesn't matter she won, does votes should be counted in favor of her.

I'll be the first to say that right now the momentum is goign with Obama so it doesn't mean he still couldn't win the nomination, but those votes for Hilary would put her much further in the lead, so they definetely need to resolve this issue one way or the other.

and don't expect another election to take place cause it ain't happening. you can't realistically expect a candidate to have a "re-vote" on an election they already one. get real. IF Obama won he wouldn't want a revote and I don't expect Clinton to want one either. You don't give your opponent a chance to win a state you already one.

just as an aside I noticed that Obama agreed to two debates in TX and OH, the two states he's believed to be trailing in, but not any of the states he thinks he might already win.

You can't have it both ways. I hear Obama people already trying to complain about the superdelegates - how they're not part of the democratic process so the nominee shouldn't be decided by that (Yes, I'm looking at you, Donna Brazile!). But guess what, those were the rules. Florida and Michigan were out per the rules too.

So either follow all the rules (superdelegates in and FL/MI out) or continue to pretend you represent something different while playing the same old political games, Obamamaniacs.

Just love how Hillary supporters want to count the votes in these states. Perfect! Break the rules, keep your name on the ballot (when everyone else played by the rules to remove their names in MI), let the voters vote for Hillary vs nobody, then when nobody is looking, go ahead and count their delegates, as if nothing had been agreed to. Well...it follow a pattern for the Clintons: just be sneaky as long as you get away with it - right Monica?

Clinton supporters didn't have a whisper to say about this back when it looked like the Queen held her crown in hand. Now that they realize that the man they consider a usurper has overtaken her, they wring their hands about the poor voters of Florida and Michigan.

Their legislators made the decision to move the date up, despite knowing the consequences; now they want special privileges to fix the mess. They made the bed, now they must lie in it. If my state did what theirs did, I would be organizing a campaign to chastise and humiliate the stupid politicians who disenfranchised their own voters.

The Clintons just want to harness the situation to win by playing dirty. 'Cos they can't win any other way...

Don't worry, Democrats! Be happy, Democrats!

Miz Chillary and Ol' Bill will work this out right after they collect those Florida and Michigan delegates at Denver, pass GO, and collection THE NOMINATION!

Miz Chillary (of the famous Whitewater Plantation!) will explain it all to those poor benighted and unhappy Obama voters!

"Seedofchange,

Are you telling us that 50% of the voters in Alaska, Connecticut and Delaware are black?"

You forgot to ask about North Dakota. I personally KNOW that ALL of the black voters in North Dakota voted for Obama. I know both of them.

"Are the Democrats seriously considering disenfranchising the citizens of Florida? "

Executing them would be simpler, but disenfranchising them will do.

DaTourist wrote:

"After Obama won South Carolina, helped enormously by Bill Clinton's dissing of Obama, Hillary violated her pledge to the DNC, and campaigned in Florida...."

WylieD wrote:

What alternate universe do you live in?

DaTourist replied:

Why don't you assign me one?

WylieD wrote:

Clinton never campaigned in Florida. She did hold a closed fundraiser there. This was allowed by the rules, and, in fact, Obama did the same in Michigan. And Obama ran ads intended to be seen by Florida voters.

DaTourist replied:

I just don't understand why that uppity Obama doesn't buy this version of Hillary's hewing to the DNC rules in Florida. Black attitude? Or what?

WylieD wrote:

A million and a half Democrats voted in the Florida primary. The results should be counted. I would love for Obama to go to Florida and tell the voters otherwise.

DaTourist replied:

Oh, well, a million and a half Democrat voters will get a chance to register their discontent with the DNC and their brokered nominee in Election 2008 IF THE DEMOCRATS DISENFRANCHISE THEIR OWN PEOPLE.

WylieD wrote:

But he's gutless. He'll have surrogates do it.

DaTourist replied:

Gutless and UPPITY!

You know how those Chicago bros are! Always telling Mayor Daley to stick it in his ear! And putting down foie gras! Why Daley's an Obama man I just can imagine!

AMERICA'S TIME FOR RECONCILIATION HAS COME:

Here's a place to start:

cslang.blogspot.com

PASS IT ON

You know, you people who keep touting that Michigan and Florida's primaries were bogus aren't very American at all. The candidates didn't have to BE in Michigan and Florida, nor did they have to CAMPAIGN in Michigan and Florida for the people of these states to have their say. This is America, a government for the people by the people and the people of Michigan and Florida have spoken. It doesn't matter what the candidates themselves did. The people of Michigan and Florida said they want Hillary Clinton! Wake up Democratic Party and acknowledge it.

You know, you people who keep touting that Michigan and Florida's primaries were bogus aren't very American at all. The candidates didn't have to BE in Michigan and Florida, nor did they have to CAMPAIGN in Michigan and Florida for the people of these states to have their say. This is America, a government for the people by the people and the people of Michigan and Florida have spoken. It doesn't matter what the candidates themselves did. The people of Michigan and Florida said they want Hillary Clinton! Wake up Democratic Party and acknowledge it.

Obama and his supporters are terribly dishonest. No candidate pledged that Michigan or Florida primaries shouldn't account ahead of time. No candidate pledged to take their names off the ballot in Michigan or Florida. In a conspiracy against Hillary, Obama and Edwards took their names off the ballot one day before the deadline. They then cried foul that Michigan wouldn't put their names on the ballot. Disgusting politicians.

In the meantime, American voters have the opportunity to observe the Democrats' problem-solving skills in action, and evaluate how these smart statesmen (as always they remain smarter than the average bears or statesmen) will solve the problems of the Middle East and world peace!

Aint it all just so edifying! Don't you feel confidence creeping over you like...like...like an ice-cold bath????

"After Obama won South Carolina, helped enormously by Bill Clinton's dissing of Obama, Hillary violated her pledge to the DNC, and campaigned in Florida...."

What alternate universe do you live in?

Clinton never campaigned in Florida. She did hold a closed fundraiser there. This was allowed by the rules, and, in fact, Obama did the same in Michigan. And Obama ran ads intended to be seen by Florida voters.

A million and a half Democrats voted in the Florida primary. The results should be counted. I would love for Obama to go to Florida and tell the voters otherwise.

But he's gutless. He'll have surrogates do it.

Well, after reading Dan Balz' scintillating analysis and prescription for fixing the problem, Democrats can go to bed happy, knowing all will be well.

Don't worry! Be happy!

Some how George Mitchell will ride in on a white donkey and all will be in harmony again!

Okay, folks, let's all just calm down a bit, and re-think this prob!

1. The DNC sanctioned Michigan and Florida for jumping the gun on party primary rules.

2. All candidates, INCLUDING HILLARY, pledged not to campaign in Florida and Michigan.

4. After Obama won South Carolina, helped enormously by Bill Clinton's dissing of Obama, Hillary violated her pledge to the DNC, and campaigned in Florida on the promise that she would seat the Florida and Michigan delegations in Denver irregardless of DNC rules.

5. Now it appears that the Florida and Michigan delegates seated will deliver the nomination to Hillary, and unseated will deliver the nomination to Obama.

6. Yes, we have a small problem of trust here, folks.

Obama doesn't trust Hillary, Hillary doesn't trust Obama.

Neither Hillary nor Obama trusts Howie to be a broker.

7. If this scenario plays itself out in Denver, as seems likely, the Democrats will come out of the convention as DEAD MEN WALKING.

8. If the Florida and Michigan delegates are seated, Obama's voters will defect to McCain. If Florida and Michigan delegates are not seated, Florida and Michigan will defect to McCain.

9. Among Democrats, prayer does not seem to be an option.

10. Will the Democrats' post-mortem be written before November 2008? Could be...

"I suggest a mass exodus of Obama supporters from the Democratic party. Form a new party, a third party."

Great idea. Too bad these names are already taken:

"Scientologists" "Hari Krishma" "Moonies"

First off, Hillary Clinton said she'd fight to seat the Florida delegates if she became the nominee! It would be political suicide and a major personal embarrassment if she publicly stated she would try to get those delegates seated when the race is this tight and she looks set to fall behind Obama on pledged delegates. She'd be finished in Democratic politics. (If you're thinking yeah, she's done stuff already, allow your mind a moment to grasp how this would be much, much worse, to be unpardonable.)

In situations like these the worst thing organization heads can do is remain silent and allow some pretty wild speculating to go on unabated. The DNC should come out now and explain the viability of the countless options that are being thrown out there to resolve the FL, MI situation. Otherwise people are gonna be running around saying things like Democrats are stupid; X is such an "obvious" solution, when that could be farther from the truth.

Personally, I think the original ruling should stand. Campaigns are so dynamic, with so many peaks and lows. Imagine if the primaries were rescheduled for the summer when Obama would have a huge warchest compared to Clinton's? Imagine the rancor if the Florida result stood. Apart from splitting the delegates, there is simply no equitable solution to the problem. No, the ruling stands. Much like it should with these Superdelegates.

I don't like that Obama is throwing those subtle rumblings about superdelegates. He knew the deal going on, that the smart money was on Clinton carrying a significant edge in that respect, that he'd have to battle hard to sway them. I understand he's not saying the rules should be changed, but he shouldn't blatantly stoke the disgruntlement of his base in a way that could damage the party should he lose the nomination in a brokered convention.

To those who say why not just scrap the superdelegates, consider that parts of Clinton's campaign strategy was and is dependent on her perceived advantage with the superdelegates. If you ask why Obama should be penalized for a Florida result he didn't have the chance to influence, then also ask why Hillary should be penalized for exploiting an archaic system devised by her and Obama's own party.

I'm a disenfranchised Michigan voter, "thanks" to the stupidity of our legislature (and duplicity of Governor who is supporting Sen. Clinton). I would be so outraged if the Party reneged and counted those delegates for her (after I was denied the opportunity to vote for Sen. Obama), that I'll vote for McCain just like I insanely voted for Nixon in 1968 in protest of the Party's then traditionalists. Fair and square is one thing, but counting Florida and Michigan for Sen. Clinton simply isn't fair.

A lot of the anti Clinton comments are to put it mildy, vile! The majority of the anti Obama comments are at least civilised, no name calling. The people making the vile comments, are they Democrats? They appear to be students of the K. Rove school of politics. Does Obama want this type of follower?
Obama talks about change, a new face etc. It is a wonderful ideal. But there is nothing new about the anti Clinton abuse!

This is Obama,s mistake he took his name off the MI. ballot, thats not Hillarys problem. 1.7 milliom voted in FL.Do anyone think that our vote should not count? Do any Dems. think that we go into Nov. without
FL& MI. in play. Obama did run adds in FL, he out smarted him self.Don,t blame Hillary.

Okay, I got a Solomonic idea!

Let Obama and Hillary run for Co-President!

That would be fair, and equal!

Mr. and Madam President!

Michelle and Bill could be First Lady and First Laddy!

The Oracle has spoken, and you heard it here first!

Let's talk about this after March 4.

Hillary could pick up some momentum, split the Feb. states, and score big knockout wins in OH and TX that means she doesn't have to fight to get MI and FL in.

Conversely, Obama could sweep February, squeak out either OH or TX, and be in good shape with delegates to cover both MI and FL. A loss in OH, PA, or TX pretty much forces Clinton to drop out and they've admitted as much.

I like Obama's upside more. Barring a major Obama slide, Clinton's best case scenario now involves fighting to a draw then winning with MI/FL/superdelegates.

What Dan Balz in trying to say in this article is that Obamacrats must prepare themselves for Hillary and her DNC henchmen and henchwomen to seat the Florida and Michigan delegations in Denver, and snatch the nomination from the Noble Obama, the Great Black Hope!

For the good of the party, Barack and the Obamacrats must NOW STAND ASIDE like The Noble Romney, and the clear the way for HILLARY, HILLARY, HILLARY!

As Bill would say, "ALL MINE AND HILLARY'S, TOO!"

Ah, svreader, where did you learn such words as "neural implant"? They are really too sophisticated for somebody like you. Did you have correspondent lectures in your mental facility? Unfortunately, you still don't understand the meaning of these words. Find the lecturer and ask for additional explanations. But the way. my communications are not so much scrutinized now, as they were before. I think that it is because I have discussed this scrutiny publicly on the board. I mean that scrutinizers are not showing their presence any more, as they did before, the same extremely idiotic way, which you use to operate on this board. For example, Mrs. Clinton concentrated attention of the beholders exclusively of her pretty non proportional behind during some organized by AAPR debates just after I translated and orchestrated the song about self-righting bubble doll toy. You have the same mental capacities, and reactions, as your mistress does. No wonder that I thought sometimes that you are her alter ego.

The Constitution is clear, STATES run elections, not parties. While the parties have the right of association, they do not run elections. The real decision here is whether voters want their states in charge or their parties. I'll take states any day. Isn't interesting that the Democratic party was for counting every vote in 2000 and 2004, but insist on disenfranchising two states in 2008? And most ofthe Democratic candidates went right along with the party. Who do they serve, their party or the voters?

'The situation cries out for leadership.'

George Mitchell? That ol' honky?

This is a job for Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton! Just ask 'em and get outta da way!

'The situation cries out for leadership.'

I betcha a dollar to a donut former President Clinton would volunteer to arbitrate this conundrum in a fair and equitable way.

Give Bill a chance! Aint Bill a great Democratic leader?

Republicans are source of political pestilence these days, and I'll *have to* vote for Hillary if she runs in the general election, but as the lesser of two evils, not as a candidate I'm excited about.

I think a lot of people would do just that-- vote for Hillary because we are fed up of Ayatollah Bush and his mafia, not because she is a great candidate. She is certainly not. She's a good *campaigner*, but that's different.

I for one don't trust Hillary one bit; whereas Republicans I trust-- to do more damage and keep us in perpetual war. So I'll take my chances with Hillary if given the choice. Certainly not an optimal choice.

So yes, I'm hoping for Obama to bring in a wave of change to the party and the way the Democrats have governed whenever they've had a chance in the past four decades. I'm tired of the baby boomer culture wars. I'm tired of weasel words and broken promises. I'm tired of politics by poll and divisive politicking, and of politicians in the pocket of special interests. And I have Clinton fatigue, and she has done nothing but reinforce my mistrust of her during her weaselly campaign.

I see Obama's campaign as a chance to renew the Democratic party and bring in a new generation of Americans into the process. If we pick Hillary, it will a slow political suicide, because only the party faithful and those voting for the lesser of two evils will be involved in the process.

I hope that explains my position?

Badjer3, idiot-svreader, and whoever else, Florida and Michigan should have their caucasuses all over again, or Hillary should be thrown out of democratic race for her illegal promises and advertised illegal intentions to overthrow current DNC chairman. Simle and clear!!!

'The worst possibility for the Democrats would be failing to resolve the Michigan-Florida problem before everyone arrives in Denver. That could produce an ugly rules or credentials fight that would leave the loser's supporters bitter and demoralized. The situation cries out for leadership. As one Florida Democratic Party official put it, "Anybody know what George Mitchell's doing?"'

This is just a modest suggestion?

Has Howie and the DNC considered the power of prayer?

Who can win California and Florida? If you answered Clinton, you are right. You get 82 points.

If you answered Obama, you get to go to Disney World!

'Devine said what's needed is "a mechanism that takes account of what has happened but doesn't unfairly penalize Senator Obama for not fully participating."'

Okay, Hillary, one for you! One for Barack! One for you, one for Barack!

You see what a great solution this is, right?

aepelbaum --

Do you still think that the Clinton's are monitoring all of your electronic communications?

Do you still think you have a neural implant?

Don't make everyone on these boards laugh.

You're a walking "Zyprexa" ad.

SpeedofChange, people, who voted for Hillary, are extremely wrong, and would rip off their hair in no time, if she really wins presidency. I am sure that you know it the same way, as I do.

'Short of scheduling sanctioned events, this will have to be resolved by DNC Chairman Howard Dean and the two presidential campaigns.'

What did Howie say?

Howie screamed, "EeeeeeeeeeeeYOWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!"

Neitherwinterproduction, McCain is better than Hillary as anyone is better than she for the presidency. If Hillary is nominated, my vote would go to McCain.

Why isn't svreader still in a straight jacket? Why is this mentally retarded and aggressive creature allowed still to pour its dirt on this web?

Alerico -

Are you still in the party? Its been 10 minutes, surely something hasn't gone Obama's way this whole time. Haven't you decided to vote republican yet?

'One solution is for the two states to organize caucuses for this spring, perhaps in May. But the cost and complexity of running caucuses in states as large as Florida and Michigan make this more difficult than it sounds.'

What a marvellous idea! EUREKA!

Let the DNC pay for it! Win-win! Who would object?

With our votes, of course.

With what, you nose?

================

Obama supporters should rent the movie Elmer Gantry.

It is about this fast talking, conman (lets call him Barrack) who meets this female evangelist (lets call her Oprah) and take out across the country to sell religion to the masses in the 1920s. They are both eventually seduced by fame and the use of blind faith over common sense. In the end, events conspire against them and fate finally deals them a crushing blow.

Interesting movie.

================

Yeah I saw that movie in the 1990s, it was remade as "Slick Willie", he barely escapes impeachment, and his woman stood by him, no matter what.

The irony is that the rest of us and not them got the crushing blow of 8 years of Dubya, thank you very much, enough of that already.

Time to clean up the Democratic party.

There is NO WAY Democrats can afford to piss off Florida.

Look at what happened last time...

People talk about Renzko like its something to worry about in the General. Does anyone remember John McCain and the Keating five? Both McCain and Hillary are covered will so much dirt its laughable to even mention Obama's few missteps!

Obama supporters should rent the movie Elmer Gantry.

It is about this fast talking, conman (lets call him Barrack) who meets this female evangelist (lets call her Oprah) and take out across the country to sell religion to the masses in the 1920s. They are both eventually seduced by fame and the use of blind faith over common sense. In the end, events conspire against them and fate finally deals them a crushing blow.

Interesting movie.

ATTENTION MICHIGAN DEMOCRATS!!!!

We need a new primary or caucus! Who the heck is "Uncommitted" anyway? This whole thing is ridiculous. We need to have a seated delegation based on a vote of named candidates. There is too much at stake for Michigan to not be represented. Contact the Michigan Democratic Party and request that they do the right thing for Michigan residents. www.michigandems.com then click on "Contact Us."

I wonder who suggested to re-do the states voted already. Contests are fair as long as both sides were on the same grounds.

I wonder who wanted to have stated to desert their votes and remake them with the form of caucuses.

I wonder who inserted those ideas to the media, including Dan. Whoever that is, a great manipulator.

I wonder who suggested to re-do the states voted already. Contests are fair as long as both sides were on the same grounds.

I wonder who wanted to have stated to desert their votes and remake them with the form of caucuses.

I wonder who inserted those ideas to the media, including Dan. Whoever that is, a great manipulator.

===============
blah blah bla blah

The states that matter...have spoken...GOODBYE and GOOD RIDDANCE!!!!!

blah blah blah

Posted by: leslieanneconover | February 8, 2008 07:50 PM

===

Nice lunatic screams there on behalf of your candidate! Good show! And good to see you've seceded 4 states all on your own! "The States that Matter..." Impressive...

Just think, what if the Confederates had asked for your help in 1861... who knows what could have happened!

Does anyone know if there is a petition out there to the DNC about this matter? Online or otherwise?

I'm sooooooooooo OVER this big time loser named Barrack Obama!!!!!!!!!!

CLINTON WINS BECAUSE:

1. Florida
2. New York
3. Massachussettes
4. CALIFORNIA

The "PEOPLE" have spoken Barrack...she's in, and you're out!

Quit acting like a "win" in Alaska, or Idaho means something.

The states that matter...have spoken...GOODBYE and GOOD RIDDANCE!!!!!

P.S. It's time you learn some proper respect for fellow politicians who have helped pave the way for you and your career. Quit looking like such a dick, and drop out already. We are done with you! The middle can have you...the Mighty East and West have spoken!!!!!!!

P.P.S. Who really cares about Michigan's delegates....FLORIDA is the decision maker out of the 2 and she won handily...re-do your stupid caucus crap in Michigan...it really doesn't matter...OBAMA has lost...the media is PLAYING all of you for more ratings and more $$MILLIONS$$ in extra advertising for their networks.

Wasn't the media, the group that said she could lose in California and Massachusettes????

Obama got his ass handed to him in California and Mass! Thanks media for the faulty information.

Good night, Obama....BACK TO THE MIDDLE WITH YOU!!!!!!! BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

I think everyone in the party agreed not to campaign in Florida or Michigan. Hillary did anyhow. The others did not.

Rules were set and agreed upon. To change them at this juncture is not fair.

That said, I hope Hillary and Barrack get together and work this out in advance of the convention. To do otherwise would hurt the party when we most need unity. We cannot allow another 4 years of fanatical right wing mess.

why are you guys fighting? And why is news media stoking the fire?

They should(both camps and DNC) negotiate a caucus or primary in FL and MI again.

I don't feel like explaining the why's. It should be obvious to any thinking person.

If it comes down to the DNC super delegates deciding the nominee and they ignore the delegates of Michigan and Florida, it would be logical that the voters in each state would be so disgusted that those two large electorial states will be colored very red on election night.
Why didn't the DNC strip them of 1/2 the delegates like the Republicans?

We've got count all the votes.

If we don't we're not going to have a leg to stand on when the November recount comes, which it may very well given how close all the polls are.

If there's a tie bettween the Democrats and the Republicans, we won't have a leg to stand on if we didn't count all the votes!!!