Apparently Big Media Matt didn't get the memo:
One thing to note about Hillary Clinton's Florida and Michigan strategy is the utter selfishness of it. Her best shot at getting her way on this issue is to keep observing, in a meta kind of way, that if the DNC disses Florida and Michigan by not seating their delegates, that this could hurt Democratic fortunes in Florida and Michigan in November.
Yeah, real "meta." Haw. Like that would even happen. Why would any voter, let alone a Floridian, be sensitive about having their vote counted?
There are, however, any number of solutions to this problem. One, if Clinton dropped out and endorsed Obama, the delegates could be seated [with] no problem. Two, 50-50 delegations could be seated without controversy, again removing the concern about MI and FL lacking representation. Three, leaders of the Democratic Party from all factions could reiterate that everybody knew the rules going in and the voters of Michigan and Florida have nobody to blame but their own state party leaders for creating this situation.
Pesky voters! They don't want to give in to bitterness and divisiveness and "blame their own state party leaders."* They want their votes to count! Why don't they smarten up and listen to The Boiz?
The Times today:
As supporters of Senator Barack Obama of Illinois try gingerly — and, lately, not so gingerly — to plant the idea that the presidential nominating season has run its course and the time has come to declare a winner, there is at least one obstacle. The Democratic voters of Indiana and beyond, who have been little more than bystanders through four decades of presidential primaries, seem to be in no hurry for this campaign to end.
At least not before their ballots are cast.
And that has become a central argument for Mrs. Clinton as she implores voters to lend her candidacy a lifeline. In rally after rally in Indiana and North Carolina last week, voters booed and jeered when she mentioned that some Democratic leaders and unfriendly pundits believe she should leave the race.
“There are some people who are saying, you know, we really ought to end this primary, we just ought to shut it down,” Mrs. Clinton told a few thousand people who had gathered in Mishawaka, where a giant “Hoosiers for Hillary” sign served as a backdrop.
“No!” boomed the crowd.
Pesky voters! Don't they realize that every time they make Obama feel that campaigning is like a "Bataan Death March" a kitten dies?
If hopes are diminishing among some supporters of Mrs. Clinton — privately, many concede they do not see a clear mathematical path to winning the nomination — [as if there could be!] that word has yet to reach the voters here who filled gymnasium after gymnasium on her two-day trip through Indiana. The mood of the rallies and town meetings was far from the grim picture portrayed in the endless whirl of political chatter on cable television.
Who knew?
Roberta Weaver drove 90 miles to Fort Wayne from Kokomo and waited outside in 40-degree weather for nearly five hours to catch a glimpse of Mrs. Clinton as she walked into a diner for a discussion about the economy. When Ms. Weaver heard a reporter asking a few folks in the crowd about the outlook for the senator’s candidacy, she jumped in with a scolding.
“No way, no way should she get out of the race,” said Ms. Weaver, a 70-year-old retired nurse. “I think people are deceiving themselves if they think that she can’t win this. She’s stronger and her support is much stronger than what many people think.”
Not long ago, in the days leading up to the primaries in Wisconsin, Ohio and Texas, it was hardly uncommon to come across Democrats attending Clinton campaign events out of what they described as a sense of nostalgia, with the unspoken worry that time could be running out to see her.
But with the contest in Pennsylvania more than three weeks away, followed two weeks later by Indiana and North Carolina, much of that skeptical talk has been replaced by an enthusiasm for voters to have their voices heard in the historic campaign, whether they support Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Obama.
The arrogance of it! Voters wanting their voices heard!
You know, it should be apparent by now that Obama has a real hard time closing a deal. (Maybe that accounts for his thin legislative record?) I think he should admit the inevitable, and drop out, because there's no clear mathematical path to the nomination for him. Obama's got a bright future in the Senate, or maybe even as Attorney General. Or, with the whole law school thing, on the Supreme Court.....
NOTE This is the first time I've heard "blame your state party" advocated as a remedy for disenfranchisement. Truly, the Unity
Pony is magic!
UPDATE Mr. Stubble's on the case, fobbing it all off on a reader, as usual.
- lambert's blog
Printer-friendly version- Login or register to post comments
Front page
Comments
That Divisive Bitch!
How dare she push for people's vote to matter! How will the party survive this shameful attempt at destroying it??!!
Disclaimer: I am not naive. Of course it's also self-serving of Hillary to push that meme. It's a good one, so, why should she not use it?
Go Global!
FrenchDoc:
"Of course it’s also self-serving of Hillary to push that meme."
Sometimes the right thing to do is good for you too.
x
------------------------------------------------
“I don't belong to any organized political party. I'm a Democrat.” - Will Rogers
They want Hillary to quit
so Obama can get busy uniting us!
If she would just quit and endorse Obama, he could generously agree to seat the FL/MI delegations as-is, and then everyone could have their vote counted when they unanimously elect Obama!
Kool-aid and ponies for everyone!
I like the fact that all three proposed "solutions" to the problem work out in Obama's favor, and the one that isn't mentioned is the most democratic - count all the votes in all 50 states.
x
------------------------------------------------
“I don't belong to any organized political party. I'm a Democrat.” - Will Rogers
From the article
Yeah, no controversy except that's not the respresentation that was voted for. That is still saying, your votes don't count, even if your delegates are seated.
I still can believe that "progressives" are pushing for the 50/50 split. Obama did not earn 50 of the vote, that would be stealing.
Why can no one understand that?
Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!
He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave.
- Sir William Drummond
Obama supporters boo Shelia Jackson Lee
Sheila Jackson Lee Booed by BO's Followers
But Clinton is the one dividing the party.
WTF is up
Who came up with this 50/50 and why are they still pushing it?
How is 50/50 different than adhering to the initial imposed 0 delegate penalty? Does 50/50 apply to super delegates?
Why change the rules to allow 50/50? Why not just keep the original planned ZERO/ZERO? They are both the same net effect.
oh my god - disrespect for Leaders. Ramapant Democracy!
Obama supporters boo Shelia Jackson Lee
new
Submitted by DCblogger on Mon, 2008-03-31 12:32.
Sheila Jackson Lee Booed by BO’s Followers
But Clinton is the one dividing the party.
* reply
Her district went 90% for Obama and she's a Hillary supporter. She got booed by her constituents. Of course it's immoral for mere voters to second-guess a Hillary supporting super-delegate around here.
Understand this
I don't have a problem with HRC pushing for revotes in MI and FL. However, counting the sham MI/FL primaries - something the Clinton camp has suggested - is disenfranchisement as much as a 50/50 split.
Revotes are the only way to fairly enfranchise MI and FL voters. And while I don't have to tell you that Obama hasn't been as amenable to revotes as he could be, perhaps you need to be reminded that Clinton hasn't been either.
In case you missed it, Obama told Leahy to SYFPH : "My attitude is that Senator Clinton can run as long as she wants... Her name is on the ballot. She is a fierce and formidable opponent, and she obviously believes she would make the best nominee and the best president.”
the anti-obama spin on revotes
You have to understand that
1. It's not fair to not count the votes even though Clinton agreed they would not be counted before she needed them, because nothing is more important than the right of people to make their choice known through the ballot.
2. BUT it's perfectly fair that Michigan Obama and Edwards voters did not have a ballot choice to support their candidates because, well, that's just hard boiled politics.
You see, the principle that every voter must be counted only is a principle when Senator Clinton benefits.
Getting the memo....
As BTD said in the link above, the Obama campaign has dropped this stupid talking point of WWTSBQ
? I like to think that we did our little bit to make that happen. I'm just making sure that everybody gets the memo. Heh.
Glad to see that Obama revised his wording, too. I thought the previous "she has every right" condescending and arrogant, and in hallway conversation in Philly, I was not the only one. Pushback works.
[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
for the record
MI was a sham.
FL was not a sham. Everyone was on the ballot so that's Step 1 in an election. Also, the FL polling is similar now as it was then. The only thing missing from FL was campaigning and $$$. FL will not be getting a revote without changing the law and having mail-in voting (which is a sham).
I have no problem counting FL primary, but there SHOULD be a delegate penalty because (a) them was the rules and (b) it sends the wrong message if no penalty
Ugh! I get so tired of explaining this
"Clinton agreed they would not be counted before she needed them, because nothing is more important than the right of people to make their choice known through the ballot."
Clinton argued against the decision from the beginning, and claimed it was going to bite the party in the ass. That's why she didn't remove her name from the ballot, so her voters could make their voices heard, even if the delegates wouldn't count.
"BUT it’s perfectly fair that Michigan Obama and Edwards voters did not have a ballot choice..."
...Because their candidates chose to remove themselves from the ballot, because they felt Iowa was more important. The fact that their supporters didn't get a chance to make their voice's heard is not Clinton's fault, or even the DNC's fault, b/c the DNC didn't push the pledge abandon the MI ballot, the candidates did.
But off course you won't respond to me on this, well at least not a topical response.
Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!
He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave.
- Sir William Drummond
To be continued
A month ago, the posts and the comments were exactly what they are now. Nothing has changed. We still listen to average brains such as Big Media Matt and pay attention to them as if they say anything a smart program cannot be programmed by a high school student wouldn't say.
That fact that the Obama movement has turned fascistic is hardly noticed. The fact that the Democrats have turned into the hate and racist party is ignored. Obama will probably get the node because people are afraid to oppose fascists. I, for one, am not going to support hatred, sexism and racism; I am not voting for Obama.
KoshemBos
Good Work, Guys
Yes, I think this watch - along with the work of folks like BTD and Melissa McEwan - definitely helped. If nothing else it provided an on-line voice for the reaction many Hillary supporters (and I suspect even some Obama supporters of the non-fanatic kind given the polls showing more than 80% of dems want the race to continue).
It's fascinating to me that Hillary is divisive because she wants people to vote and for votes to be counted. Apparently voting is now considered a hostile act in some democratic circles. Weird.
For a take on how Obama is forcing a crisis of legitimacy in the democratic party, see http://anglachelg.blogspot.com/2008/03/d...
In any event, I believe we may need a new, related watch on how eager Obama folks are to substitute in "pledged delegates" for the "will of the people", which is a joke when you look at states like Texas. I guess some democrats only believed votes should be counted and translated into "winning" states when it was their candidate (Gore) who won. Sad, because I thought it was the principle that was important, not the person.
And may I propose a pool, if Obama loses the Pennsylvania primary, how long will it take before Hillary, Bill, or some Clinton supporter is accused of "racism" or some other "ism" (McCarthyism?). Because every time Obama has been in trouble, after losing New Hampshire (Hillary's LBJ, Bill's "fairytale"), after March 4 (Ferraro), and after the Wright story broke (Bill's alleged "McCarthyism"), there's some BS accusation taking some Clinton person out of context. So any guesses on how long it takes for such allegation to be made by Obama or his surrogates (minutes, hours, days?), and which Clinton supporter will be accused? I say call it now, so that when it happens more people will see it for what it is.
"Do what you feel in your heart to be right -- for you'll be criticized anyway. You'll be damned if you do, and damned if you don't. " - Eleanor Roosevelt
so what's the principle?
…Because their candidates chose to remove themselves from the ballot, because they felt Iowa was more important. The fact that their supporters didn’t get a chance to make their voice’s heard is not Clinton’s fault, or even the DNC’s fault, b/c the DNC didn’t push the pledge abandon the MI ballot, the candidates did.
But off course you won’t respond to me on this, well at least not a topical response.
The principle is that you don't get a right to express your opinions if your candidate falls for a procedural trick?
Hillary was the front runner. The rules prohibited the challengers from campaigning - i.e. making highly probable that the front runner would win. But it's democratic because mumble mumble mumble mumble.
I am one of those Florida voters
--and yes, allowing Florida votes to count is so yesterday. We just line up like sheep down here and go through the motions--hand over our DNC money and pray that someday slavery will end.
OMG, was that racist? please don't tell HRH.
kc
All of this concern
All of this concern trolling about democracy and the will of the people is quite funny coming from supporters of a candidate who said:
*unless the the process requires her to accept the sanctions imposed on FL and MI by the DNC.
And All of this Concern about Rules
Is very interesting coming from Obama supporters when the rules allow Michigan and Florida to be seated by the credentials committe or by floor vote regardless of earlier DNC decisions and the rules allow revotes in Florida and Michigan. None of the rules require Michigan and Florida to be permanently banned from the convention.
"Do what you feel in your heart to be right -- for you'll be criticized anyway. You'll be damned if you do, and damned if you don't. " - Eleanor Roosevelt
Who said anything about
Who said anything about banning them from the convention, BDBlue? I'm sure that one way or another they will be seated. My point remains: it is an amazing sight to see Hillary supporters cry "won't anyone think of the voters?!?!?" when her continued viability as a candidate depends on 1) the superdelegates ("automatic delegates" in Mark Penn-ese) breaking in significant numbers away from the likely (winner of the popular vote|pledged delegate leader), 2) pledged delegates not "stay[ing] with whomever they are pledged to", or some combination of the two.
Victory conditions for the nomination are 2025 delegates
No candidate is a "winner" without that.
Nobody will have that prior to the convention, so the race is a tie until the superdelegates vote.
stupid straw man
dmd, you make so little sense and are so transparent.
My point remains, Obama's continued viability as a candidate depends on the super delegates breaking in significant numbers.
PERIOD. Now shut it, because you show me any table, formula, estimate that show Obama having 2024.5 delegates WITHOUT SUPERS.
Obama can't win without super delegates. Maybe he should reconsider his campaign.
The Principle
Yes, if your candidate plays politics with your vote, they could lose it. Obama planned in advance to taint the Michigan vote. Since he wasn't going to win, he decided nobody could win, and that was final. I would really like to vote for Feingold for President, but he's not on the ballot, so I can't, and that's not a miscarriage of democracy, that's just the way it is. you can't vote for a candidate of they aren't on the ballot, and Obama chose to let that happen. So, IMO, screw him, especially since he blocked the revotes.
Nobody ever campaigns in my state for president(until now) and yet, somehow, we decide who to vote for. Voters who want to vote will find out about their candidates even if their not exposed to them.
Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!
He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave.
- Sir William Drummond
Also
This is really bad framing. Everyone has a righ to an opinion. You just don't get to express your candidate preference if the candidate is not on the ballot. That may not be fair to the voters, but that is Obama's fault. He was the one who cheated his supporters. Twice. First by denying them the opportunity to vote for him in the first primary, and then again by blocking the MI revote.
Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!
He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave.
- Sir William Drummond
"Likely" Winner
And right there is my problem - Obama is the "likely" winner of the popular vote and pledged delegates (note, the likelihood drops drastically if Florida and Michigan are included in the popular vote and even pledged delegate count).
So basically, in one of the closest nominating contests in history, we're supposed to predict who will end up in the lead in votes and just go with him. Nevermind how many predictions have been wrong so far. Nevermind that not everyone agrees on the probability or likelihood Obama will lead in the popular vote (or even pledged delegates if Michigan and Florida are seated, although he's much stronger there than in votes).
Nope, a bunch of - not coincidentally - Obama supporters have declared him to be the likely winner, so no need to vote. Forgive me if I don't find this line of "reasoning" all that convincing.
Let the people vote and let their votes be counted. A principle I used to think all democrats believed in.
"Do what you feel in your heart to be right -- for you'll be criticized anyway. You'll be damned if you do, and damned if you don't. " - Eleanor Roosevelt
from sweeping principle to technicality
he principle is that you don’t get a right to express your opinions
This is really bad framing. Everyone has a righ to an opinion. You just don’t get to express your candidate preference if the candidate is not on the ballot. That may not be fair to the voters, but that is Obama’s fault. He was the one who cheated his supporters. Twice. First by denying them the opportunity to vote for him in the first primary, and then again by blocking the MI revote.
Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!
First it's a principle that the voters preferences be counted. Then, if the DNC says this election will not be counted and forbids the candidates from campaigning and candidates withdraw from the sham, known to be not counted election, then it's ok to later change the rules and count the result because, you know, it's the candidates fault. And Obama and Edwards supporters in MI can fuck off, because, well every voter counts except for those who want to vote the wrong way.
What a bunch of crap. You elevate procedural hardball into moral imperative and then switch back to procedural hardball as it affects your candidate.
No buddy
You need to read my post. I wouldn't support Clinton in this either. Thing is, I can still have faith that Clinton would support democracy, while Obama has shown me that he won't.
I supported revotes. Clinton supported revotes. I would have been perfectly content if Obama had allowed his supporters the opportunity to voice their support. Obama denied them the right to voice their support. Clinton, through every step of this f'd up(and biased) DNC SNAFU, she has maintained the right to allow her votes to be heard. And, IMO, you should reap what you sow.
Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!
He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave.
- Sir William Drummond
Submitted by Aeryl on Mon,
Submitted by Aeryl on Mon, 2008-03-31 16:44.
The principle is that you don’t get a right to express your opinions if your candidate falls for a procedural trick?
Yes, if your candidate plays politics with your vote, they could lose it. Obama planned in advance to taint the Michigan vote.
OOOH. Obama PLANNNED to TAINT a vote that the DNC said would not be counted but that would not have been TAINTED if he hadn't acted nefariously by following the rules.
"concern trolling" democracy
Does that really deserve a response? Seriously?
Candidate X and candidate Y will come and go. What happens when people stop "concern trolling" about democracy?
Over 2,000,000 people
And record numbers of people turned out to vote. If it was such a sham, why did > 2,000,000 people show up to vote? FL had more voters than IA, NH, NV, SC combined show up to the polls. And we are supposed to believe those were "sham" elections? Give me a break.
regardless
No matter which side of the speculatory masturbation over FL & MI can we all just agree that:
(1) FL will not have a re-vote
(2) MI probably needs a re-vote or there will be pissed of people on every side regardless of how they engineer a "solution"
(3) DNC is gonna do whatever it is going to do
(4) In all likelyhood some amount of delegates from FL & MI are going to be seated
All of this banter over what is the "fairest" way to seat delegates. I hate to ruin the ending of the novel, but the DNC is busy behind the scenes engineering their own solution. If I had to guess I would say the lurve Hillary, so it will probably shake out in her favor, but we have no choice but the wait and see. (Or troll messageboards attacking one another)
Can they treat one state one way, and not do the same for the other one? I say no.
So...
(a) no delegates as original rules
(b) a 50% delegate penalty
(c) seat all delegates as voted
(possible revote in MI - though very unlikely)
(d) some half-brained 50/50 delegate nonsense
The last one is the same as seating no delegates, so the only purpose I can see is an attempt at either allowing supers to not vote 50/50, or some devious scheme to influence second round voting.
Also, rootless,
The GOS himself said on Oct 2007, that removing their names off the ballot was a slap in the face to Michigan voters. Obama screwed himself on this, and he has no one to blame but himself, and the backlash is only going to get worse with his benevolent remarks about how FL & MI will be seated, after he has the nomination, when it won't matter.
I do agree that the DNC needs to issue punishments(though both State Legislatures had taken sufficient steps to halt the bill, to be allowed a waiverwithin the DNC RULZ) Allowing only 50% of their delegates seems sufficient to me. Unfortunately, the only metric with which to award these delegates, remains the "sham" elections, and that is because Obama made it so.
Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!
He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave.
- Sir William Drummond
I still don't understand why the voters should be punished...
... because their state parties screwed up.
[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
Looks like there are a lot
Looks like there are a lot of excited and enthusiastic Hillary voters out there in states that don't usually get to vote in primaries.
Oh hey, remember when we all had to STFU
and vote for Obama lest we break the hearts of young people and African Americans? Does that reasoning work in reverse, now that we have excited Oregonians, West Virginians, etc? I'm guessing no.
Her district went 90% for
Does this go for Bill Richardson too? I'm guessing no.
they won't ever revote in MI--
too many crossed over to vote in the GOP primary (encouraged by Kos) and none of those people (mostly Obama supporters, i think) would be allowed to vote this time since they'd already voted in a "normal" primary--unless they revoted both Dem and GOP primaries--which won't happen.
Why did Obama & Edwards remove their names in MI?
1) Without the ability to campaign, it was near impossible to win. HRC led by 20+ points in just about every state and nationally early on in the campaign. If you refuse to admit that campaigning was necessary for Obama to earn votes in early states, I'm not sure what to tell you. Its pretty obvious.
2) Obama got a bunch of bad press in IA/NH when he took questions from reporters on the street after a fundraiser in FL. With these states being so important to establish viability for unknown/underdog candidates, he couldn't afford risking backlash by not removing his name in MI.
3) Removing his name defended against HRC trying to manufacture momentum and change the nomination narrative on the heels of "victory" - which she did in Florida.
4) Removing his name defended against HRC trying to get the uncontested primary counted after the fact - which she did try to do.
* In case you don't already know, obscure laws prevented Obama and Edwards from removing their names from the FL ballot.
So, please don't maintain that Obama kept his name off the MI ballot for nefarious reasons. There were several legit reasons to do so.
Lastly, for those of you who keep citing turnout to try to legitimize the MI and/or FL primaries: I have linked several times on this site to a study that shows an estimated 2 million voters stayed home in MI/FL who would have voted if they thought the votes would count.
Whether or not
there were legitimate reasons for doing so(and remember they were scathingly attacked by the left blogosphere for caving in to this, so it's funny to see the whole of the blogs now try to defend it), but regardless he took a risk!! And he could have compensated that risk, by allowing a revote(especially since now Obama's supporters are claiming he could win by 10 points in MI, now, I think if that were true, the revote would be over by now), he chose not to. He must pay the consequences for his actions. Instead the party and his supporters are trying to protect him. That bodes so well for the White House.
Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!
He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave.
- Sir William Drummond
go ahead, boo bill richardson
Her district went 90% for Obama and she’s a Hillary supporter. She got booed by her constituents. Of course it’s immoral for mere voters to second-guess a Hillary supporting super-delegate around here.
Does this go for Bill Richardson too? I’m guessing no.
I wouldn't cry if Bill Richardson got booed by his constituents - they got a right to express their opinions. But did new mexico go for hillary 9 to 1?