Meanwhile, what Josh said about Hillary Clinton's efforts to change the rules of the primary midstream. There was a time and a place to stand up for the Michigan and Florida primaries, but she didn't do it. Instead, she signed a pledge agreeing not to "campaign or participate" in them and the DNC, without her dissenting, said they would get no delegates. She could have decided to do something different, but she didn't and that's the way it is.
« Primary! Fight! Fight! | Main | Look At This »
Calvinball
25 Jan 2008 05:48 pm
Comments (160)
Calvinball! How apropros, and bonus points for the Calvin & Hobbes reference.
So Mat, ready to change your opinion that this doesn't have a chance to rip the party?
This is also about undermining Howard Dean and his work to strengthen state parties. Clinton wants it to go back to when they were in charge over there and abso-fucking-useless at winning elections.
Matt,
You are wrong! By the DNC rules, the decision to seat or not seat the delegates at the convention is up to the other convention delegates not the DNC. She has every right to ask her delegates to seat Michigan and Florida. Obama is free to take the position that he doesn't want to seat the Florida delegation. It won't play well for him in Florida eitehr in the primary or in the general election.
Classy, Hillary, classy.
This is the first time I've really worried about the recently-increased executive power being in the hands of a Democrat.
The Obama campaign today began airing paid television advertisements in a national cable buy that include advertising in the state of Florida.
Yeah, it was a national buy. You can't order a national except for Florida or Michigan buy, so far as I know.
Put it this way, Hillary Clinton's website--including all her ads--has been accessible in Florida and Michigan since long before this ad buy. Doesn't that put her in violation too?
Bushscum, meet Hillaryscum. You guys have a lot to talk about.
Always good to see Democrats standing up and demanding that a state be disenfranchised. Always good to see liberals standing up and saying small, white, rural states like New Hampshire deserve to keep their overwhelming influence.
Wait, no it isn't.
The politics of this is not good for Obama. Here is the headline in Detroit News website:
Friday, January 25, 2008
Obama rejects Clinton's olive branch to Michigan, Florida
Gordon Trowbridge / Detroit News Washington Bureau
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080125/POLITICS01/801250437/1409/METRO
Vidor, Michigan was already disenfranchised. It's over. Seating their delegates now wouldn't enfranchise them without going back and having a competitive primary. I suspect I'm not hte only one here who would have lauded HRC had she stood up for Michigan and Florida when it counted, but she didn't.
Dan the Man,
I'm not sure exactly what the primary rules stipulate, but there's absolutely no way to avoid advertising in Florida without completely forgoing national cable buys. I'm guessing that that isn't what they had in mind when they wrote the rules.
Now, to the rest of your post: Due to the phony mass-mailing-template style it's composed in, I'd say that it's more than likely that you work for the Clinton campaign. Afterall, we know that Hillary Clinton has very little internet and youth support is certainly not above faking it, i.e. planting questions. Well, I'd just like you to relay the fact to your boss that this young, liberal Democrat will never vote for Hillary Clinton in any election -- and there are many more like me. If Obama loses the primary, we may have to organize ourselves into some kind of write-in campaign or outright Democratic resistance movement. At this point, I'll do anything to prevent that slimy sack of poison from winning the Presidency. I just wish I could tell her that when she's rotting in a nursing-home many years from now, her life-long ambition smashed before her eyes mere inches from the finish-line, that it was we who were responsible.
Florida Senator Bill Nelson to endorse Hillary Clinton.
Report: Florida Sen. Bill Nelson Will Endorse Hillary
By Eric Kleefeld - January 25, 2008, 6:03PM
The Huffington Post reports that Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL), the top elected Democrat in the Sunshine State, will endorse Hillary Clinton for president.
Nelson's endorsement probably has something to do with Hillary's newly-announced support for seating the state's delegates, which were taken away by the Democratic National Committee because of the state's rogue primary. Nelson has become champion of the early Florida primary, even unsuccessfully suing the DNC in federal court to have the delegates restored.
Late Update: Nelson put out a press release earlier today, lauding Hillary for her position on seating the Florida delegates. The statement is available after the jump.
http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2008/01/report_florida_sen_bill_nelson_will_endorse_hillary.php
There was a time and a place to stand up for the Michigan and Florida primaries, but she didn't do it.
See also: Nevada caucuses, at-large venues.
It's bizarre that, over a short period in which the Clinton camp has reminded those taking an interest of a sneaky, old-fashioned politics, Hillary has picked up the NYT endorsement.
Classless, classless, classless.
The honorable("dis") Senator Clinton doesn't understand how close she is getting to having some of us move from not giving her money or getting involved in get out the vote efforts if she is the candidate toward not voting at all in the democratic presidential column. I'm enough of a loyalist to not vote for any of the republicans, but this is getting ridiculous.
This is the first time I've really worried about the recently-increased executive power being in the hands of a Democrat.
If this is the first time you've been worried about that, then you must've been asleep during the nineties.
"Vidor, Michigan was already disenfranchised."
And whose fault was that? Not Hillary's, as she put her name on the ballot.
I didn't think I'd see the day where liberals argued that entire states shouldn't have a voice in the nominating process.
Basic question: why is Hillary pursuing this *now*?
Sigh...once again Obama is in an awful spot. He tries to keep Michigan or Florida from being seated and he's portrayed as disenfranchising the voters in both states. He allows them to be seated and he loses since Hillary is on the ballot in both states.
Of course, this is also further proof of the "rules don't apply" to us mentality of the Clinton's. Everyone else decided to abide by the agreed upon rules, but I guess that doesn't mean anything.
Vidor,
It's pretty simple...Michigan and Florida keep their primaries where they usually are and there's no issue. They changed it and were punished under rules the it seems like everyone, at least in spirit, agreed on.
I don't think anyone likes the possibility of disenfranchising those voters at the convention. But this is largely a problem of their own making.
Sadly, Hillary is doing everyhing in her power to make Jonah Goldberg's book seem relevant.
After this stunt, I absolutely will not vote for Hillary in a general under any circumstance but one -- if Giuliani is the Republican nominee.
"It's pretty simple...Michigan and Florida keep their primaries where they usually are and there's no issue."
Why is there an issue? Why do New Hampshire and South Carolina get to be special? Hey, here's a crazy question: which state is likely to be more important to the Democratic Party this November, South Carolina or Florida?
"I don't think anyone likes the possibility of disenfranchising those voters at the convention."
Then you shouldn't advocate disenfranchising them.
Vidor,
At the request of the DNC the all agreed to remove their names from the ballot, but Hillary never removed her name. Nice.
So how good does that make you feel about how she will govern? What promise will she make, but have no intention of fulfilling?
Exactly who agreed to abide by which rules here? Michigan Dems chose to break DNC rules by scheduling an early primaries, knowing that the DNC would strip their delegates, and gambling that they would be seated anyway. Debbie Dingel and Carl Levin tried to get a state law passed that would have required all of the Dem candidates' names to be restored to the Michigan ballot. It's silly to think that Obama agreed to abide by the DNC scheme out of desire to follow rules for their own sake, rather than because he thought taking Michigan off the table would give him an edge in the nomination fight. Again, this is presidential politics, people.
"So how good does that make you feel about how she will govern?"
How does Barack Obama saying Democrats in Michigan and Florida should have no say in the primary process make you feel about how he would govern?
And guess who's on the ballot in Florida? Everybody, that's who.
Vidor,
Since he did not say that, I have no problem.
"Why is there an issue? Why do New Hampshire and South Carolina get to be special? Hey, here's a crazy question: which state is likely to be more important to the Democratic Party this November, South Carolina or Florida?"
This is a specious argument. Of course Florida is going to be more important in the presidential election. That's not really the point here, though. I also agree that perhaps we should scrap Iowa and N.H for a national primary. But, again, that's something that ought to be decided well BEFORE a presidential campaign, not in the middle of the primary season.
The DNC did not disenfranchise Florida and Michigan. Obama and Edwards did not disenfranchise Florida and Michigan. Florida and Michigan disenfranchised themselves.
So, Clinton supporters, do you have no shame? Two issues:
(1) as messed up as I think the current primary system is, the rules remain the rules, and they exist for a reason. Can you imagine the free-for-all that would happen as states all tried to one-up each other in an attempt to be the first? The DNC is there to resolve disputes, and all parties agreed to this setup beforehand.
(2) Even supposing Florida and Michigan have a legit case to move their primaries up this specific cycle against the rules, don't you think it's more than a bit underhanded for Senator Clinton to dishonestly promise not to campaign in them to not lose points in Iowa and New Hampshire, and then turn around as soon as its convenient for her (and after all her opponents have ignored the state) to take advantage of her institutional strengths in those two rogue states?
And a third, for good measure: the agreement was between Obama, Clinton, IA, NH, NV, and SC; it was to ensure that both Obama and Clinton were campaigning in good faith recognition of the states' role as the initial ones, regardless of how things would be ideally. Obama's ads are ones he bought to be broadcast nationally on cable. He purposefully asked for them not to be played in FL; cable networks said that was impossible. Nevertheless, he still asked South Carolina's Democratic Party chairperson if the ad buy was kosher; she said it obviously was, because it didn't undermine SC's role as the last legitimate remaining primary before February 5. It's clear as day that no foul occurred here.
It's stuff like this that makes it impossible for me to take anything Clinton supporters say as being on good faith.
By the way, "everyone" didn't agree to abide by the rules. Dodd, Kucinich, & Gravel stayed on the Michigan ballot, too. That is, everyone who perceived an advantage to himself (Barack, Edwards, Richardson, Biden) in pulling out, i.e. slowing Hillary's momentum because she was polling in the lead, pulled out. Biden tried to get a boost from it by attacking Hillary AND Dodd for "hedging their bets." It wasn't just about Clinton and her purported lust for power; every Dem candidate did what he/she did at the time according to what seemed best for his/her chances to win.
No one forced Obama and Edwards to remover their names from the Michigan ballot. They did it voluntarily to boost their appeal in Iowa and NH.
Anyone with a clue knew Florida delegates would be seated since it is a purple state Dems need to win.
Team Obama is getting outworked and outthought in the nuts and bolts part of the campaign.
Time for him to go long with a direct appeal to the left and a pledge to enact universal healthcare.
Kucinich tried to get off the Michigan ballot, but didn't get the paperwork in on time. Dodd was just as bad as Clinton in Iowa as he tried to discourage students from voting.
By the way, "everyone" didn't agree to abide by the rules. Dodd, Kucinich, & Gravel stayed on the Michigan ballot, too.
Now that is down right funny!
Obviously, changing the rules midstream would be unfair, and this is a somewhat slimy tactic by Clinton.
At the same time, I think it was inevitable. I don't see any reason to assume that the other candidates wouldn't have pulled a similar stunt if it had been to their advantage. Running for the presidency is a high-stakes game, and requires some major sacrifices - expecting candidates to voluntarily adhere to strict principles of good sportsmanship is a little unrealistic.
I'd be more inclined to blame the party leadership for making the decision to strip the delegates- it predictably created a situation in which the interests of a candidate and the interests of the party came into serious conflict. They should have found a better solution.
Amazing. Democrats galore arguing to protect New Hampshire and disenfranchise two far more important states. I guess all that talk on this and other blogs wasn't sincere.
Calvinball...that's funny.
If only Hillary put this much effort into removing telecom immunity from the FISA bill or SCHIP expansion.
Can we clear one thing up? All we are talking about is not allowing Democrats to vote in the Democratic presidential primary, yes? This has nothing to do with the general election, correct? Can someone state for certainty that this is the case?
"It's clear, this election they're having IS NOT GOING TO COUNT FOR ANYTHING," Clinton said Thursday during an interview on New Hampshire Public Radio's call-in program, 'The Exchange.'
I disagree. The problem with the primary schedule is the hissy fit Iowa and New Hampshire get to throw if they don't go first. They also broke the rules but they won't be getting sanctioned.
Any candidate that did not fall in line was going to get punished for daring to challenge this obnoxious tradition. The only way to have reform of the primary calendar is to put everything on the table - including allowing other states to go first.
Besides which we need Florida to win in November. Screw Iowa, Screw New Hampshire.
If you agreed to the rules beforehand, you do not change the rules in mid-stream when you see it rebounding to your advantage. The time to argue about the validity of Iowa and New Hampshire's sacrosanct status was the time *when the rules were being decided.*
Most twelve-year-olds understand the concept that you play by the rules that were agreed upon at the beginning of the game. I wonder sometimes about Hillary's astroturf operation, and the strategy of going around various blogs dropping blatantly absurd arguments. Who is it that they hope to bamboozle? I doubt readers of Yglesias's blog are so ill-informed and unintelligent as to buy into this kind of drivel. Is it to code meant to stir other Hillbots? Is it to draw sufficient numbers of Obama supporters into debating meaningless points so they won't be phonebanking or canvassing? It's honestly mystifying to me.
Mike P, that's correct.
Vidor: care to address any actual points? MI and FL just failed to hold a primary for which they could send delegates to the convention; the onus is on them to. Imagine a state deciding the hold a general election a week early for attention, and the college not seating their electors as a result. Would you complain that that state isn't being represented?
And, no, I'm not arguing to protect NH and IA. I think rotating regional primaries would be ideal. But what I am arguing for is for the rules to be followed so we don't create chaos that can only damage Democrats' chances in the future. If we don't follow those rules now, if we did get rotating regional primaries (or whatever your favored primary schedule would be, Vidor--what is it, by the way, if you do happen to be an actual commenter and not a paid Clinton shill like on Blue Hampshire?), some state could very well just jump ahead and try to steal the show. This just wouldn't work.
Running for the presidency is a high-stakes game, and requires some major sacrifices - expecting candidates to voluntarily adhere to strict principles of good sportsmanship is a little unrealistic.
Yeah, you know, expecting a candidate to win an election based on his or her merits, rather than bullshit legalistic maneuvering, is positively un-American.
Vidor,
Please stop being obtuse. The decision of whether the delegates should have initially been stripped is entirely separate from the decision of whether the rules should be changed now.
I happen to think that the initial decision was a bad one, both in terms of (small d) democratic principles and (capital D) Democratic interests. However, altering that decision once primaries have been conducted under the old rules would undermine the integrity of the election process.
> I disagree. The problem with the primary
> schedule is the hissy fit Iowa and
> New Hampshire get to throw if they don't go
> first. They also broke the rules but they
> won't be getting sanctioned.
I don't like the current primary process myself, and I would like to see it fixed on a national basis, but /someone has to be first/ and those states that aren't first /won't be first/. That is the result of arithmetic not disenfranchisement.
Cranky
Look, complain about the relative inherent virtues of New Hampshire, Florida, or Michigan all you want, New Hampshire has a legitimate claim on being first. They adopted a primary in the Progressive era and maintained it through the first half of the 20th century while other states were largely happy to keep or return to having the nomination process controlled by party elites. New Hampshire was first in liberalizing ballot access rules to encourage turnout and popular participation in the nomination process. The other states largely didn't get on board on the Dem side until after the debacle in '68. New Hampshire was serious about popular participation for decades while other states were content with their smoke filled rooms, so they're entirely justified in telling Florida and Michigan to stick it.
"And, no, I'm not arguing to protect NH and IA."
Exactly, precisely what you are doing. Florida is about to hold a primary. All the Democrats are on the ballot. Should it count, or not? Are you for disenfrancisement of Florida, or do you believe they should have a voice in our primary?
Stop evading, Vidor.
Vidor, when did stop beating your wife?
Obama people, Stop whining! This is hardball politics and your guy has been outmanuevered here! He should simply support the effort to seat the delegations of the two states. Otherwise, this will produce terrible headlines in the local newspapers.
If he is the nominee, are you going to whine in the GE too when the Republicans pull much more hardball stunts?
All this constant whining doesn't inspire much confidence in Obama's ability to stand up to republicans. This is my biggest worry about him. He has never run against a serious Republican candidate in his entire political career.
All this constant whining doesn't inspire much confidence in Obama's ability to stand up to republicans.
All this shameless excuse-making doesn't inspire much confidence in Hillary's ability to be different from Republicans.
Pick your poison: the Clinton camp working from Karl Rove's playbook, or the Obama camp being suckered in by it.
Hillary isn't guilty of calvin ball: all the ridiculas traditionalists who love having the fishbowl in Iowa and NH and went way the fuck out of their way to keep it stacked this year stacked the deck against all the other states getting this crazy economic windfall.
Everybody kept it that way so as not to piss off the iowa and NH voters and party orgs.
Florida and Michigan shook off the craziness and went ahead and are justified in doing so.
to hell with the stupid cute reference:
lets let people have a vote and let florida count and lets not have a crazy fannie lou hamer mississippi moment at the convention that leaves egg on our democratic faces: fix a bad decision.
And to be explicit: 'no backsies times infinity' is no fucking way to run a campaign, and to argue that 'everyone knows' the MI and FL delegates will eventually be seated, and that the campaign should have been conducted under that assumption, is total horseshit.
If you're going to treat party rules with contempt, you might as well just hold Howard Dean at gunpoint until you're declared the nominee.
Clinton people! Stop characterizing yourself as hard-nosed, street smart, politically savvy, realists! This is the Democratic presidential primary. It IS a debating society. It IS a cotillion. Jon Kerry won it a walk. In fact, a long parade of stiffs, eggheads and weirdos have won it on a walk. Start asking yourself, "If Hillary is such a dynamite candidate, why does she have to fight so hard to win this nomination? What is the general going to be like? And, if she does win the general, how will she ever move forward a progressive agenda or get the U.S. out of Iraq?"
Hey I think the point really is Mr. Dean and the party orgs held the rest of the states at gun point. Your afraid of changing party rules? What if the party rules included literacy tests at registration or loyalty oaths? You are holding onto the idea rules of the party over remedying arbitrary disenfranchisement: are you that freeking rule bound? you must be a first born child: only birth order could explain such concrete thinking and love of rules
Shorter Michael C. -- "I've got nothing."
are you that freeking rule bound?
You're the kid who ran off and took the ball home when you were losing, weren't you? Trying to pass off this horseshit as character building? Go and suck Karl Rove's fetid cock.
Josh is wrong in almost every FACTUAL particular.
Like you, he seem blithiely ignorant of what happened in Michigan (Obama made a Calvinball play there himself), who decides who seats the delegates, and accuses Hillary of using muscle she does not have.
It was a stunningly ignorant post from Josh, but that has been his MO of late.
Exactly my point! Yeah, John Kerry won it in a walk in teh primaries and then blew it in the GE because when the swiftboaters came after him, he whined instead of hitting them back. He is a terrible example for Democrats!
Who is the only Democratic politician to win two back-to-back elections since FDR? Bill Clinton!
There is no excuse making from me! I am totally behind what the Hillary campaign did today! Elections are not debating societies. Before you can enact change you have to win elections! Republicans understand this while Democrats wallow in highmindedness!
You have to do what it takes to win!
SRK - only emotionally disturbed adolescents find it necessary to use an exclamation point after every sentence. The content of your posts is already juvenile enough. Please, stop abusing the English language and our patience.
Hillary is not trying to win an election, she's trying to win the Democratic nomination. If you have to fight tooth and nail and bring out every dirty trick to win it, maybe you're not that great of a candidate. Maybe, you lack critically vital political abilities. Especially, if you're something short of an insurgent candidate and have a household name and all the institutional support behind you.
John Kerry lost because he didn't fight back? Because he didn't have pure, will-to-power, political will? Wasn't he just sort of a terrible candidate?
Armando,
Josh is wrong in almost every FACTUAL particular.
Care to prove that? Here's the link that contradicts your statement.
Here's the pledge she agreed to
"I, (name), Democratic candidate for President, pledge I shall not campaign or participate in any state which schedules a presidential primary election or caucus before Feb. 5, 2008, except for the states of Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina." It goes on to specifically say that "campaigning" will be as defined by "the rules and regulations" of the Democratic National Committee.
As I said before, if she lies about this, she will lie about this.
The proud partisans of the sufferage of MN must DEMAND that their delegates be given to the only candidate with her name on the ballot! It would be a travesty if this close fought election against Uncommitted was taken away from history.
Besides, it just shows how tricksy she is, she'll enter into an agreement with the Republican nominee to have them both take their names off the ballots in key states in the general then... hah, like she is gonna do that. They take their name off and Hillary wins in a landside! Yew-Ess-Aye! Yew-Ess-Aye!
sashaqz, Are you even old enough to vote?
Is, is, is, is, is.
You Clintonistas are so damned clever.
The weeks since Iowa have been quite a revelation - am I supposed to be impressed by a campaign that will clearly stop at nothing to secure victory? Oh, right - that means she'll be REALLY tough with those dastardly Republicans.
The whole performance is Rovian. If Hillary is the nominee, I'm close to not caring who wins in November.
What strikes me about the Clinton tactic of not removing her name from the ballot - then pushing for delegates to be seated - is that it follows the instructions given to candidates in letter, but not in spirit.
Really, the tactic runs directly counter to the spirit of the party decision.
That is too reminiscent of how GW Bush approaches the Constitution.
RD, so, by your logic, your candidate who is behind in national polls, who is losing every demographic except the AA vote is the better candidate?
That is an empirically laughable claim!
Let me just add that I might feel differently about this whole affair if Hilary's voting record in her time as a U.S. Senator had even one example of her using this sneaky legalistic approach to accomplish any policy goal.
If she's so committed to fighting dirty, why haven't we seen any of it in action on our behalf in the last six years?
Republicans understand this while Democrats wallow in highmindedness!
If that's all that matters to you, fuck off and re-register as a Republican.
SRK,
But Obama is doing very well all match ups in the GE. So your remark is meaningless, though it does have whiff of a racist tint.
nc, I was a Democrat when you were probably in your nappies. So, knock it off!
Yeah, it was a national buy. You can't order a national except for Florida or Michigan buy, so far as I know.
Which makes the ad buy a violation of the agreed upon rule.
Put it this way, Hillary Clinton's website--including all her ads--has been accessible in Florida and Michigan since long before this ad buy. Doesn't that put her in violation too?
Let me restate the agreed upon rule to you. It says that in those states, what is prohibited includes "purchasing [...] electronic advertising that reaches a significant percentage of the voters in the aforementioned state."
So in order to violate the rule you need to do at least 3 things:
1. It needs to be an ad, not just some candidate talking.
2. It need to be "purchased" ie there needs to be paying involved.
3. It needs to reach the voters in those states.
Obviously, putting something on your own website is not an "ad" in any normal sense of the term. Second, even if it was an ad (which common sense tells you it isn't), it wasn't "purchased". One doesn't purchase an ad on one's own website. So obviously Clinton didn't violate the rules in the examples you mentioned. Obama's ad buy from MSNBC/CNN obviously does break all three rules and therefore he broke the pledge.
blind, there you go. I was waiting for this. You Obama supporters cannot make any argument without accusing your opponents of racism, can you? Well! it flows from your candidate.
When you have to resort to name-calling, that is sure sign of a weak intellect!
SRK. Seriously. Dude. Knock off the exclamation points.
max, do you know to write in complete sentences? Are you still in first grade?
Why didn't Clinton share this wisdom with the world, say, two days before the New Hampshire primary? If the issue is really so dear to her heart, why keep it bottled up for an extra two weeks?
SRK,
I pointed out that you were wrong about demographics. Obama polls just as well Clinion in GE polls. Why did you bring race into the discussion? What's up with that?
"max, do you know to write in complete sentences? Are you still in first grade?"
"max, do you know (HOW)"...it should be "do you know HOW to write in complete sentences? Are you still in first grade?"
If you're gonna argue grammar mistakes, cover your ass; classic Clintonoid mistake.
I have to say that as a Floridian, I wish my vote would count. I don't think Floridians should be punished because the poobahs had decided to push up the primary, even though it's understandble why they did that. What is so ironic about this whole matter is that from hindsight moving the primary up was a dumb move now that super Tuesday really matters.
Dan, how do you respond to my earlier third point? I'll reprint it in full.
"And a third, for good measure: the agreement was between Obama, Clinton, IA, NH, NV, and SC; it was to ensure that both Obama and Clinton were campaigning in good faith recognition of the states' role as the initial ones, regardless of how things would be ideally. Obama's ads are ones he bought to be broadcast nationally on cable. He purposefully asked for them not to be played in FL; cable networks said that was impossible. Nevertheless, he still asked South Carolina's Democratic Party chairperson if the ad buy was kosher; she said it obviously was, because it didn't undermine SC's role as the last legitimate remaining primary before February 5. It's clear as day that no foul occurred here."
Surely that has some relevance here, no?
Ben has a point. Bill C was unprincipled but as far as we know didn't actively transgress the Constitution. It's now a lot easier to do that.
Only one of the current Democratic candidates sees the point of limits on gov't power.
Why didn't Clinton share this wisdom with the world, say, two days before the New Hampshire primary? If the issue is really so dear to her heart, why keep it bottled up for an extra two weeks?
Oh, I'm sure it just slipped her mind--she's really busy these days. These things happen sometimes. :P
here go the obama jihadis again
Obamanites = losers
Enjoy tomorrow night since you will be lucky to win a third of the states on February 5.
SRK remains as classless and tedious as ever. In any case, why would anyone take seriously an individual who is obviously a Republican-lite drinker?
According to the NYT today Clinton's getting ready to buy some national ad time too, so I assume whatever else she does in Florida she'll be happy to let her ads play there.
I'm a Michigan voter. If HRC pushes to have Michigan delegates seated and succeeds, after we had a non-competitive non-primary, there will be hell to pay. We were told our votes *would not count*. People therefore stayed home, or voted in the Republican primary. A small number of us went out and voted for "Uncommitted" as a way of showing support for either Obama or Edwards, who were not on the ballot, but it's no surprise Hillary got the majority, as she was the only big name on the ballot.
If she turns around and insists that the non-primary, which people were assured would not count, actually counted after all, people are going to be furious. There is no way now to enfranchise all the Michigan voters who were told that the Democratic Primary wasn't going to count and who therefore stayed home; at this point, it would just be another slap in the face.
What's Hillary's plan for NOLA?
What's Hillary's plan to fix the VA for the wounded Vets? Obama's? Edward's?
What's Hillary's plan for GITMO? Dems plan?
What's Hillary's or ANY DEMS plan for HABEAS CORPUS?
What about the black prisons and torture, ANY plans about that from the DEM'S canpaigns?
DEFICIT, HOUSING BUBBLE, CREDIT CRUNCH, TANKING ECCONOMY, DEVALUED DOLLAR, any word from Hillary and the rest about a solution?
What's the plan for AFGHANISTAN OR BIN LADEN?
Speaking of DNC rules and the Convention. I believe the rules are that the delegates seated by the DNC rules (ie without MI and FL) constitute a body that can make it own convention rules. So if the delegates seated choose to throw out SC, for example, they could. In addition, if the delagates seated choose to seat MI and FL they can do that as well.
Hillary is asking her delegates to support MI and FL when they ask to have their delegations seated after the convention starts but before balloted for nominees takes place. This is all within the rules. They can agree or they can disagree.
Since Hillary will have the enough delegates to win the nomination her request looks like a gracious act to include all fifty states in the process of nominating her and making sure that all votes count.
What about WARRENTLESS WIRETAPS AND SPYING ON ORDINARY AMERICANS, any word from the front runners ot that?
The Republicans have answers for these questions---The wrong answers to be sure but answers none the less.
The proud partisans of the sufferage of MN must DEMAND that their delegates be given to the only candidate with her name on the ballot!
MN is Minnesota. A perfectly nice state but their primary isn't controversial (yet). Easy mistake since two letter codes had to be distributed among Mississippi, Missouri, Minnesota, Michigan, and Montana
Boy, I have to say that as an Edwards supporter, the tone of the Clinton supporters on this site confirms my instincts that Obama is the only way to go.
You guys have to be kidding me -- this is hardnosed, smart politics of some kind? This is sneaky, short term, dishonorable bullshit. The Clintons are really wearing out their welcome with a lot of us who stood by them in the 90s despite their own tepid commitment to things progressive. They're pushing their luck.
Had the Democratic Party in Florida chosen to move up the primary date, that would have been one thing. But in Florida, the legislature sets the primary calendar. The National Democratic Party is punishing Florida Democrats for something the Republican legislature did. When the Democrats considered setting up their own primary in compliance with DNC rules, the Republicans decreed that all amendments would be placed on the January 29 primary ballot. The Democrats would still have to vote on the 29th in order to take a stand on more tax cuts (at a time when the legislature is in constant special session to reduce the budget by $1 billion here, $2.5 billion there), and then vote again later. This has become a lose-lose situation for the party here.
The DNC compounded the problem by agreeing that candidates could still solicit dollars from Florida, but could not address voters or their concerns. Thus, I get constant dunning calls from the DNC, Congressional Democrats, all Democratic callers, while feeling totally disregarded in every other way. Obviously money trumps all principle.
The Republicans have played the DNC like a violin. The Democrats who had no say in the primary date are told their delegates will not be seated, while the Republicans, who changed the rules, are seeing a real campaign in the state and will have half their delegation seated. Everyone is furious at the Democrats, while the Republicans skate home free.
Fortunately, all names are on the ballot, so should the convention delegates so choose, we will have a potentially representative delegation ready to seat.
YAAAAAWWWWN. Here in Pennsylvania, we've been practically (if not officially) disenfranchised for so long that this is nothing. In the spirit of tooth and claw, I will thus favor only arcane rule changes and fights that favor my favored candidate. Everyone else can throw gardenias...
Someone please out her as a lesbian or some other scandal and put an end to the Bill and Hillary excellent ego campaign.
Corrupt, deceitful and corrupt. Enough of the Bush/Clinton legacy.
Since Hillary will have the enough delegates to win the nomination her request looks like a gracious act to include all fifty states in the process of nominating her and making sure that all votes count.
Since? Uh-huh.
Karen v H makes the obvious point about Michigan: it's the equivalent of declaring the American Idol final vote, after the fact, as a vote for a presidential nominee. If she wants Michigan voters to have a stake in the convention, let her campaign contribute towards another primary in the state that's competitive and counts.
Hillary obviously wants to stick it in her win column, along with the Florida result, regardless of delegate allocation. Which actually creates the impression that she's not confident of winning the delegate count, and willing to work from the Rove playbook.
Of course, that will have me accused of being an Obamabot, which would be funny if it weren't so absurd. In truth, both Hillary and Obama are campaigning in ways that carry a nasty smell into the general and potentially into an administration.
blindjoedeath:
Then th
Which he signed also and broke:
The Obama campaign today began airing paid television advertisements in a national cable buy that include advertising in the state of Florida. There is no question that these ads are a clear and blatant violation of the early-state pledge that Senator Obama and the other leading Democratic candidates signed last year.
The early state pledge was crystal clear in its prohibition against any kind of campaign activity (outside of fundraising) in states that do not adhere to the DNC calendar. There is no ambiguity. Among the list of prohibited activities are electronic advertising that reaches a significant percentage of the voters in the aforementioned state. (According to Nielsen, there are 6,6 million TV households in Florida that receive CNN through either local cable systems or satellite dishes. This represents 92% of all Florida TV households.) The Obama campaign knows this, but has chosen to violate the pledge regardless.
Just last week the Obama campaign snubbed the people of Florida in a memo that stated that Florida did not matter in the nominating process. After consecutive losses in New Hampshire, Michigan and Nevada, they appear to be changing course.
Senator Obamas flagrant disregard for the pledge that he signed is disturbing and calls the integrity of the pledge into question.
Posted by Dan the Man | January 25, 2008 6:00 PM