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 they are violating that pledge in Florida.
And they were violatig the pledge until Obama played Clavinball the day of the deadline to remove his name from the Michigan ballot and pressured all the candidates to do it or else, Iowa would wreak revenge.
Sorry, Josh remain utterly wrong in that post.
One of his poorest.
Matt knows nothng about this shit as he proves on a daily basis. Josh pretends to.
I think we have some really interesting dynamics playing out right now in the campaign, and it will be interesting to see how Obama and his people address it.
One interesting phenomenon is that the Clintons already have a reputation for being unprincipled low-roaders. So strangely enough, they can resort to almost any tactics they want without doing further damage to their reputations. People will say it's just Clintons being Clintons.
Consequently their strategy for the past few weeks has been to try to bring Obama down to their level, rather than elevate their own message. They continue to work Obama into dilemmas like the current one. If he responds to hardball gambits with hardball of his own, he risks lowering himself in the eyes of those who are attracted by his elevated message. If he tries to stay on the high road, he risks being beaned by the hardball.
But I'm inclined to think the Clintons, and the Democratic electorate as a whole, are just about at a tipping point, where the years of mounting but partially submerged public Clinton fatigue, Clinton resentment and Clinton disappointment finally catch up with the former First Couple, and the gradual erosion of the base of Clinton loyalists becomes a rapidly accelerating collapse.
I also suspect the Clinton campaign will ultimately rue the day they decided to bring Bill Clinton out front and center in this campaign. I was a bit stunned to hear that they are intending to turn this primary into some sort of referendum on the nineties and the Clinton administration. Aside from the fact that there are strong currents of disaffection among many kinds of Democrats about the Third Way politics of the nineties and about the personal qualities of the Clintons, Democrats also just don't generally respond to that kind of nostalgic message. They like "bridges to the future." It isn't just Obama who has made "change" the one word mantra of his campaign. That was Bill Clinton's word in 1992 as well.
Especially following the godawful Bush administration, there is a strong national desire to move forward with long-deferred national projects of transformation in health care, the environment, the energy economy, etc. Nobody wants to go back to some earlier time, not even an earlier Democratic administration. Another way of seeing it is that if a Hillary Clinton administration no longer strikes voters as an exciting new program, but just a batch of re-releases and reruns of a show people have seen before, even if it was a show they liked, they will get bored quickly and tune them out.
Bill Clinton certainly looks to be reprising his old role as a monster of undisciplined ego. It seems he simply cannot stand not to be the center of attention. After sitting by in frustration in the wings, watching his wife bask in the glory that was once his, he has barged out on to the national stage with his old Vaudeville act, and as a result has upstaged Hillary and stepped on her lines. The old fart is about to turn a once promising opening into a bomb.
As Josh said, some admirable, pugnacious belligerence is intrinsic to Hillary Clinton, and to judge by this comment thread that same persona has been adopted by many of her supporters.
Faced with a challenge of improper conduct, their first instinct is not principled defense but counter-accusation. They raise side issues to obfuscate the question at hand. In a way, this is part of the appeal of the Clinton candidacy; we know she'll fight any opponent like a cornered beast. But that too isn't relevant here . . .
What Hillary has done is wrong. She made a promise to her party, and she is breaking it. Everything else is smoke and mirrors.
I'm really baffled at everyone here who paints this as some kind of shrewd and hard-nosed tactical move. I think this kind of disregard for the rules - and, by implication, for those who make them - risks alienating many in the Democratic establishment, including, you know, superdelegates...
The Clintons really need to chill. Seriously.
Re-do is the only fair way. Just like grade school kickball, re-do.
If nominee has not been decided by June 3rd (last day of currently scheduled primaries) and Michigan and Florida still want to be re-enfranchised, then they must each schedule primary elections within x number of days (well before August convention), giving all remaining candidates ample time to campaign.
States screwed up, so they have to nullify early elections and pay for the re-do election, if they want it. DNC agrees to honor results and seat delegates determined at re-do elections.
I am still a douche baggy shill.
Rather than redoing it, allocate 1/3 of the delegates to each candidate, with the understanding that they may NOT transfer their votes after the first round of voting. That way, all is fair, the delegates are seated, and Hillary can't manipulate the system.
what a 1-sided load of BS this is. those who fall down in unquestioning worship of obama really need to slap some cold water on their faces.
please stop swallowing "clinton-is-a-shedevil" stories without question. have you asked yourselves why his name is on the florida ballot and not the michigan ballot? do you really think he removed his name from the michigan ballot out of some sense of chivalry, or good-sportsmanship? good grief, what a bunch of sheep. and why would hillary make this suggestion? is it possible she isn't worried about the primary delegate count, but is looking ahead to the general? wow, i can't imagine why she would want FLORIDA voters to think they are part of the democrats process...try reading your news from more than one source, it may take a few more minutes but it really helps.
Armando:
Assertion is not argument. Nor is ad hominem attack.
Please sue a client of mine so I can demonstrate to you these truisms of 1L year.
That is all.
At the minimum it's brilliant politics.
Team Hillary has now put Team Obama into the position of justifying why MI and FL votes shouldn't count, with the reality that the primary is over if they do count. Hillary has just showed these states how much they matter to her presidency. Couple this with her huge leads for the biggies on Feb 5 and her endorsements from the governors of OH and PA and you have to start asking yourself why Obama is even running at this point.
Obama can complain, but Team Hillary has just demonstrated she can outflank him at will. She's just better at politics which absolutely matters on both the national and world stage. Is Obama gonna cry to the judge if China's delegates secure a better trade deal?
Hillary is proving her point, she's about action and fighting for what needs to be done, and Obama is all speech and image. She's doing and in return Obama is talking about it. That's her whole argument in a nutshell. It's done and his campaign is left stammering and blowing hot air.
Dan Kervick,
Stop it. You are assuaging your own ego with a fantasy. Hillary is showing that politically she's Michael Jordon, and Obama in response to being dribbled around and dunked on is trying to get the ref to call her for walking.
If Obama has to expand his subtle right wing messaging, "I'm the unifier. I'm the outsider." (should remind you of a unifier and outsider from crawford) to include all the worst parts of the right-wing smear machine, what new vision is he really building here? Does he really want to build "the big tent" on the framework created by the great group of free-loving idealists at the American Spectator?
His base seems very willing to go from unity to outrage on a dime, and in doing so disprove his whole platform. But then that's why you don't build your platform on republican messaging.
Smacfarl - You are right that a candidate certainly gives themselves more room to politically manuver if they do not tie themselves down by paying any attention to unimportant things like integrity or morality.
Of course the Republicans already know this, having chosen in 2000 to pick a candidate who was a good campaigner partly because he did not let honesty get in the way of his tactics or decisions. How is that working out for them now, by the way, and more importantly, how did that work out for the country?
Lenore Wilson-
I'm not one to stick up for Republicans, but the whole "Republican legislature" thing is just as stupid as people blaming the "democrat congress" for everything they do wrong. The primary date changed passed florida's house 118-0 and their senate 37-2. I don't know any other details on it, but it sure as hell looks like Democrats in the legislature had no problems with it.
Also, what I really wanna know is why hasn't the DNC immediately come down hard on Hillary for pulling this bullshit? Are they really gonna let Hillary fuck up their state party system while Obama and Edwards are made to look like bad guys trying to stop it? Dean should step in and squash this thing before it even gets another mention.
Yeah, Marshall has really gone off the deep end lately. Great reporter, but as an opinion writer he has some pretty questionable opinions. The post in question was particularly excruciating, both totally wrong and as arrogant as it's possible to be.
As a starter, this is NOT changing the rules mid-game. The rules are as they always have been, that the final decision whether or not to seat delegations is made at the convention, and customarily a candidate instructs his/her delegates on how to vote. This is not the first time this has ever happened, children. There have been plenty of questionable/controversial delegations, alternate and competing delegations, and all kinds of stuff.
It gets decided at the convention. THAT's the rule, and it has ALWAYS been the rule.
Second, the "pledge" is about campaigning in the early states. It has NOTHING to do with whether delegations get seated. Hillary honored the pledge 100%, even though with her big leads in polls in both Florida and Michigan she had an opportunity to campaign in both states and get a lot of favorable publicity as a winner. Obama violated the pledge, and when called on it didn't back off but instead made excuses.
Third, all things being equal and the politics removed, the equities very obviously favor seating the delegates of those states, where a very large number of Democrats who should not be disenfranchied live.
Fourth, the practicalities favor seating the delegates even more than do the equities. The cows in the fields know that Florida is the Big Kahuna of the general election. The idea that the Democrats are going to start out the fall campaign by insulting Florida is a no-go. Michigan, which is also probably in theh top 5 swing states, is just a little icing on the cake. They WILL be seated.
They WILL be seated because fifth, what Hillary is doing now is the most obvious political maneuver in the world and was 100% certain to be executed by anyone in a position to benefit from it. Obviously if she publicizes the seating of the delegations, the pressure to resist them will be irresistable? Why? Because of the third and fourth reasons, that's why, i.e., because both the equities and the practicalities absolutely demand that those delegations be silly.
This is a non-issue. My suggestion is to stop debating this silliness and stop reading Josh Marshall for anything other than comic relief until he starts breathing normally again.
Good lord, those are some funny typos. I seem to have a phobia of the word seat. Try this:
Obviously if she publicizes the seating of the delegations, the pressure to SEAT them will be irresistable. Why? Because of the third and fourth reasons, that's why, i.e., because both the equities and the practicalities absolutely demand that those delegations be seated.
I have voted for every Democrat since Carter and with this newest stunt from Clinton if she is the candidate this will be the first one I don't vote in. She (and he) really are scum.
Hillary is showing that politically she's Michael Jordon,
No, they comparison you're looking for is "she's showing that she's Bill Laimbeer and Dennis Rodman." That ain't supposed to be what we're about. The GOP has Rovian whispers about balck babies, not us.
No one has addressed Karen's point about being an Obama or Edwards supporter in Michigan. Or the quote above from NPR where Clinton said "this won't count."
I'm mystified as to why people want to defend the indefensible.
Yeah, you are right, she's a great politiian. All great politicians are so incompetent they have to resort to mud slinging, shady tactics, bullshit obfuscation, and dishonesty. She broke her word...period.
It's not a surprise to me anymore and as we've seen, people will say Obama and Edwards did it to, they didn't, or argue endlessly what the true definition of "broke" is...hmmm, where have I seen that before? Sorry, she's dirtier than a public shitter in my book. She has zero executive experience and less experience as an elected official than Obama, Richardson, Biden, Dodd, Kucinich, or even Gravel, and her policy-making abilities have never been proven to be anything above any of the other incompetents in Washington. Her voting record is shit. Her personality is shit. Her political style is shit. The people she surrounds herself with are shit. I see no reason to vote for her...and I won't, ever.
As soon as the other Democrats who had the policy knowledge and skill above and beyond both Clinton and Obama dropped out I knew we weren't serious about this AGAIN!
I don't know what Hillary's camp is really thinking in trying to change the rules in midstream that applied to MI and FL. I agree that if seating pro-Hillary delegate slates from those two states were to reverse the outcome of the nomination, it would be a disaster for the party, and should be prevented at all costs.
But maybe there's a more subtle message here, one that's less about gaming the primary season, and more about the aftermath of the 2000 election.
One handicap Gore faced during our five-week election night was the expectation, that seemingly only applied to him, that he'd play it clean: that he wouldn't challenge military absentee ballots, that he wouldn't file legal challenges that couldn't be justified publicly, and so forth.
Meanwhile, Bush's team was using every trick in the book, up to and including starting a riot outside the room where disputed ballots were being counted.
I don't know if any of that actually made the difference in the end, but it seemed to make it much more of an uphill battle.
If by her maneuvers here, Hillary is saying she'll play hardball and fight dirty in a disputed election, then I'm saying: you go, girl. Because we can't afford to lose another election that way.
marcj:
Can you refute my facts?
As your comment well illustrates, assertion is indeed not argument.
Josh's assertions, echoed by Matt, are false.
Your assertion to the contrary is not an argument.
Obama has already broke the pledge by airing campaign commercials in FL, something Clinton hasn't done.
Facts are important, Matt.
JoeCHI,
If there's a way to purchase a *national* ad and have it not run in Florida, which, last time I checked was a state in the nation, that would appear curious. I wonder when Hillary will stop whining about that.
Armando,
You have failed to present any facts, so there are none refute. Are you sure your name isn't Jonah?
If you ain't cheating, you ain't trying. Go Hillary!
> You have failed to present any
> facts, so there are none refute.
> Are you sure your name isn't Jonah?
Armando is like Chuck Norris: he doesn't present facts. He creates them by the sheer force of his brain.
Cranky
MI & FL were already disenfranchised - and there own state parties did it to them. It is completely unfair to the voters of those states to change the game now - after campaigning and voting happened or did not happen. Don't paint this for anything other than it is - Hillary standing up for Hillary, Hillary fighting for Hillary - no one else.
Hillary can't impose her will on the convention by diktat. She needs votes to change the Michigan and Florida decision, right? I don't see what the problem is. Either she has the votes or doesn't. There's nothing undemocratic (or unDemocratic) about it. And once again it shows, pardon my vulgarity, who has the biggest pair in this race.
Hillary's willing to do what it takes to win. She's resourceful, creative, and, yes, a little bit ruthless. But so far I don't see there's anything unseemly about her campaign or about the various strategies she's employed. She just wants it more. And anyway, how does pushing to allow delegates to be seated constitute violating a pledge not to campaign in a given locality? If she shows up in Florida making campaign speeches, you'd all have a case. But she won't, and you don't. You're all just sore that your favored candidacy is proving to be made out of straw. But you should all be grateful we're finding that out in January rather than October.
But so far I don't see there's anything unseemly about her campaign or about the various strategies she's employed.
The NH pro-choice mailer was pretty unseemly. The trillion dollar tax increase was also pretty bad.
Also, put me in the group of folks who are unimpressed with Hillary showing she's got the biggest dick in the race.
Calvinball or political extortion? Hillary is basically telling the DNC: sit my delegates or I will make you pay in MI and FL. The DNC can only fight with the Clintons so far without risking alienating the voters in 2 state that they need to win to win in Nov. Worst it only underscores what is fast becoming a bumper sticker for the Clinton campaign: "whatever it takes"-- even if it means sticking it to their own party; talk about eating your young. They talk about how tough they are, how good they are at partisan combat, and yes it is good to have a tough fighter on your side--until they stab you in the back.
"Who is the only Democratic politician to win two back-to-back elections since FDR? Bill Clinton!"
And whose VP lost in 2000 because he was associated with him? Bill Clinton's! Making a party dependent on one family for 24 years isn't smart.
"But so far I don't see there's anything unseemly about her campaign or about the various strategies she's employed."
So you don't care about race-baiting?
C'mon, someone tell me just once something she accomplished on a real issue by resorting to such tactics. Anything. Health care. Preventing the Iraq War. Opposing the Patriot Act. Criminalizing torture. Anything. Winning the presidency only matters if you don something with it, otherwise it's just power for the sake of ego.
To be able to play hardball to get the legislation you want passed, you need to make deals. You need a certain level of trust that you will adhere to those deals. In effect, this is showing Clinton to be untrustworthy in a way that cuts off her nose to spite her face. One of the biggest problems of the Clinton administration was that it was stuck in permanent campaign mode to the detriment of governing and passing progressive legislation. When push came to shove, Kennedy was able to work with Hatch to pass S-CHIP while the Clintons had abandoned it because they thought it was doomed and then took credit for what Kennedy did. When it comes to actual issues and progress, they timidly choose their own careers and egos over results. It is only when campaigning that the knives come out.
So you don't care about race-baiting?
I don't like it one bit. Which is why I wish the Obama campaign would stop making race an issue. Can't say I blame them, though. If you do the calculus, Hillary's domination of blue collar, non-affluent, registered Democrats means Obama has to absolutely kill with black voters to bolster his latte liberal/college kid coalition. He might just be able to pull it off -- especially if Edwards stays in the race. But I doubt it.
"I don't like it one bit. Which is why I wish the Obama campaign would stop making race an issue. Can't say I blame them, though. If you do the calculus, Hillary's domination of blue collar, non-affluent, registered Democrats means Obama has to absolutely kill with black voters to bolster his latte liberal/college kid coalition. He might just be able to pull it off -- especially if Edwards stays in the race. But I doubt it.
Posted by Jasper | January 26, 2008 11:03 AM"
Oh come on. The Clintons were the ones that started with the racist dog whistles. This is like when white people make black jokes and then wonder why black people get mad and accuse them of reverse racism. If we lie to ourselves by pretending the Clintons aren't doing it, we will have no right to call the Republicans out on it the next time they throw a "I believe in state's rights" line out, we will be hypocrites when we attack them and they will throw that right back in our faces. Bush and Rove have been good at get people to just shrug their shoulders, think both sides are equally slimy and thus it doesn't matter what anyone does. This will just add to that.
She needs votes to change the Michigan and Florida decision, right? I don't see what the problem is. Either she has the votes or doesn't.
That's not the issue here. The Clinton camp wants the Florida primary to sorta kinda count in the media primary if, as seems likely, Obama takes SC today.
You're all just sore that your favored candidacy is proving to be made out of straw. But you should all be grateful we're finding that out in January rather than October.
Yeah, right. "Hillary Clinton: Tried And Tested At Divisive Shit" is such a compelling appeal to the majority of voters. Could we have a bit less of the ass-covering rationalisations, please? They're not convincing in the slightest. Perhaps we can get Hillary to slap Obama's kids about, too, just to be certain she can campaign tough?
""Hillary Clinton: Tried And Tested At Divisive Shit" is such a compelling appeal to the majority of voters."
Hey, it's better than "Hillary Clinton: Too much of a wimp to vote against the Iraq War." When it comes to fighting for issues like not killing hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis and wasting a trillion dollars on a pointless war that destabilized a key strategic region, she runs away from fighting. She fights for your right never to see a flag burn. She fights for your right to make it harder for 17-year-olds to play Grand Theft Auto. She fights to make sure her husband's mistresses are smeared. Fights only matter when they're the fights that count and she has either lost those or run away from them.
If we lie to ourselves by pretending the Clintons aren't doing it, we will have no right to call the Republicans out on it the next time they throw a "I believe in state's rights" line out.
The Clintons are not "doing it." The race issue exploded as a national media issue AFTER Senator Obama lost New Hampshire. Funny, that.
A classic example of this was Hillary's stupid, ham-handed discussion about MLK. It was a perfectly innocuous (albeit politically inadvisable) commentary about the need to marry political idealism with political muscle. You can argue the merits or validity of her opinion. But what you can't argue is that it was a racial slur. But that, of course, is exactly how Obama partisans spun it. Again, I don't hold that against them. That's politics; when your opponent says something stupid (like praising Ronald Reagan) that's a gift you can't afford to pass up. Another example was Bill Clinton's "fairy tale" comment. He was clearly referring to Obama's own claims with respect to his Iraq position. Again, you can dispute whether or not Bill Clinton's argument was correct on the merits, but it very clearly wasn't referring to the impossibility of an African-American becoming president of the United States, which is exactly how Michelle Obama spun it. And yet again, I say I don't blame them. They saw an opportunity to spike their numbers among a very important voter cohort, and they ran with it. They may yet succeed. All the way to the White House. But I'm just sick to death of the self-righteousness of the Obama campaign. He's just another politician. A good one, mind you. At attractive and liberal one I'll wholeheartedly support in the general election should he get my party's nod (even though he's not my first choice). But Obama's not a saint. And Hillary's not Satan.
I like the idea that Hillary is the michael Jordan because maybe that means Obama is scott pippen- whiney can't take a puch: isn't he the one who took his shoes off?
Obama has been off his game all week
His followers have been off thier game since the NYTimes endorsement gave truth to every thing Hillary said about her being ready and Obama being too big a roll of the dice.
I always did feel bad for scottie pippen.
"The race issue exploded as a national media issue AFTER Senator Obama lost New Hampshire. Funny, that."
Well, people started wondering about this when her campaign people in places like Iowa were sending out the "Obama is a Muslim" e-mails, so you're just factually wrong.
Jasper, you neatly parse right pass the cocaine commentary, shuck-and-jive, etc. to focus on the statement's where Clinton had something defensible to cling to. You're lying by omission. Do you really think the African-American community, the very community who had stood by Clinton more than any other through everything, would be dumb enough to fall for campaign spin when they had been waffling between the two and only started to go to Obama when he showed he could win white votes in Iowa? A few years of, Hillary Clinton had just about the highest rating among African-American voters than any other politician. That doesn't disappear over nothing. The proof in the pudding is in the eating. When you deal with racism, you can tell the difference between something innocent and real racism. If it was just the MLK thing, people would understand. I have dealt with racism in this country myself and I know what it's like and how to spot it. You don't get followed by staff through CD stores after looking at the rap albums, get racially profiled at the airport, etc. without starting to figure some things out.
Also, Clinton's banking her nomination on the idea that Latinos won't vote for a black guy to give her California and thus the nomination. Playing to racial divides within the minority communities that tend to vote Democratic is not good for the long-term stability and growth of the Democratic Party. It's downright suicidal.
Matt: 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.
Matt and Josh are right. The DNC made a decision and Hillary pledged to abide by it, then she didn't (probably because she sees she has a chance to lose).
What does it say about Michigan and Florida when they make the unilateral decision to go ahead of the vast majority of other states. They're more important? The DNC should devise a fair system with agreed upon rules, but Hillary playing to the least common denominator doesn't help.
Doesn't this demonstrate that Hillary could go back on any pledges she makes to the left wing of the party when it suits her?
Also, any Democrats who support Hillary when she does this kind of thing - repeadtedly - can't really complaing when Republicans engage in fraud and shady tactics, as they've done in Florida and Ohio, etc. Doing so just makes people disillusioned and drives them away from politics. Republicans have the money, Democrats need the turnout.
I like the idea that Hillary is the michael Jordan because maybe that means Obama is scott pippen- whiney can't take a puch: isn't he the one who took his shoes off?
I'm a Chicagoan who was lucky enough to witness Michael Jordan play at the height of his powers. He inspired people: young black kids and white kids. That's Obama. As someone said, Hillary's has transformed into Bill Laimbeer, dragging the game into the mud, or one of those annoying players who always work the refs, instead of just playing the game.
Josh Marshall corrects himself today, in an indirect way to be sure, but his publishing of the e-mail that refutes him makes it clear he was wrong.
Some in this thread may want to rethink their arguments now.
I fired up TPM to try and figure out what you are talking out, Armando.
My only conclusion is that you are so stuck trying to polish this turd that you are resorting to just making up lies and hoping no one checks on them.
Armando: Don't hold your breath--Obama's net supporters, at least here, can't start their day without feeling victimized in one way or another by evil HRC. It's like their morning coffee.
No, Andruw, I'm just not a complete driveling idiot or schooled in the art of Orwellian blackwhite in order to percieve your political inversion of reality.
"Armando: Don't hold your breath--Obama's net supporters, at least here, can't start their day without feeling victimized in one way or another by evil HRC. It's like their morning coffee.
Posted by Andruw | January 26, 2008 12:46 PM"
I'm sorry, who kept on complaining about everyone ganging up on her or piling up on her? Gender victimization politics are pretty much all she has for her candidacy.
Let me repeat the two salient facts one more time: (1) the pledge has NOTHING to do with seating delegates. (This article quotes the pledge in its entirety. Find anything in there about not seating delegates and I'll kiss your rosy red whatever.) The pledge is about campaigning in the states that moved up their primaries, nothing more and nothing less, and Clinton has honored it 100% and Obama has not.
(2) NO CANDIDATE EVER PLEDGED NOT TO SEAT THE FLORIDA OR MICHIGAN DELEGATION. Sorry to shout, but this seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding. (Here's an article about the DNC's decision that includes quotes from each of the Obama and Clinton camps declaring that each candidate was undecided about how s/he would react to stripping the delegations.) Further, the candidates were not even involved in the decision not to seat them.
The candidates get to speak for themselves on this issue, despite the arrogance of the clueless Mr. Marshall who has commanded Hillary to shut up. Delegate-seating decisions will be made at the convention, just as they always are, and delegates will generally vote as their candidate instructs them, just like they always do. There is nothing at all sinister or unusual about a candidate announcing at a time of her choosing how she will instruct her delegates to vote on delegate seating.
Some in this thread may want to rethink their arguments now.
Ooh, passive aggressive time! Some ought to join their buddies in the Karl Rove Fellatio Line, because they're stinking up this thread.
Um...I think you're wrong, Trickster ole buddy. The pledge was not to campaign or PARTICIPATE in those states' primaries. Clinton never removed herself from the Michigan ballots, the others did as per the pledge. The only way to remove yourself from the Florida ballot is to remove yourself from the Presidential race, so noone did.
The Seat question is something else entirely and I believe everyone was in agreement these delegates would get that anyway. The problem is the Clintons' sudden concern for voter participation. We think it's fake as Republican concerns for the poor. Just another cog in what I see as a pattern in the way the Clintons' operate. That's not so hard to understand is it? After all, all Clinton supporters are the smartest people in the world, right? They know all that is politically savvy, right? Everyone who opposes them are idealistic idiots, right?
It's pretty revealing how HRC supporters begin to spew Al-like levels of hackery and misdirection when the chips are down.
Shorter Hillarybot: smashing in the heads of kittens and puppies with a rubber mallet only proves that Senator Clinton is tough enough to take on her buddy John McCain in a civil general election.
Shorter Hillarybot: smashing in the heads of kittens and puppies with a rubber mallet only proves that Senator Clinton is tough enough to take on her buddy John McCain in a civil general election.
No doubt. All I know about Hillary so far is that she's ruthless at politicking and gutless at statecraft.
The reason she needs to be so amoral is because she can't get elected any other way. She's been preparing for this campaign probably since 1993, and she stilll has to duke it out with a guy no one even heard of four years ago. As has been pointed out earlier, John Kerry had a lot of competition in 2004, but he was coasting at this point.
Hillary is a fighter, no doubt. If we make her a candidate, she will go down swinging in November. But she will go down all the same.
Drosz, "ole buddy," I think you're kind of trying to re-write history there. NONE of the candidates has said that leaving your name on the ballot in Michigan was a violation of the pledge, and the Obama camp acknowledged at the time that their action was "an extension of the pledge," not something that was commanded by the pledge itself.
If it were commanded by the pledge, then why did all the candidates leave their names on the ballot for Florida? And if it were commanded by the pledge, why did all the candidates withdraw on the last day possible (see above link) instead of as soon as they made the pledge?
What actually happened was that the Obama campaign thought they could get an NH/IA edge and pressure everybody to pull out of Michigan by withdrawing first and letting the other campaigns know they planned to publicize it in NH & IA. Edwards went along, but Clinton in effect called his bluff.
No questions answered no solutions discussed= NO SUBSTANCE, therefore NO VOTE.
If it were commanded by the pledge, then why did all the candidates leave their names on the ballot for Florida?
State law allows candidates who wish to withdraw from the Florida primary to do so by filing an affidavit stating that he or she is not a candidate for President of the United States of America. In other words: to get off the ballot in Florida, a candidate has to swear that he or she isn’t running for President.
The deadline to add or remove names in the Florida primary was October 31. At the time, Bill Nelson, Alcee Hastings and others were in litigation with the DNC over the sanctions; that wasn't resolved until December.
"If by her maneuvers here, Hillary is saying she'll play hardball and fight dirty in a disputed election, then I'm saying: you go, girl. Because we can't afford to lose another election that way."
I know this is very difficult for unprincipled Hillary supporters to understand, but I don't just vote against Republicans because I don't like their policies, I vote against them because I don't appreciate the way they treat politics as a blood-sport. If Democrats treat politics with the same frivolity as Repulicans -- as Hillary has done numerous times throughout this campaign -- then I won't support them either. Afterall, "What does it profit a man to gain the world but lose his soul?" As far as I'm concerned, Rovian politics are just as much my enemy as Republican policies. And Hillary Clinton is now just as much my enemy as George W. Bush. If Hillary Clinton wins the nomination, this is far from over.....
Oh Trickster, our first fight :)
"This is an extension of the pledge we made, based on the rules that the DNC laid out,"
There...fixed that quote for you, context goes a long way. Listen, we're arguing from different viewpoints here, so I know you will probably never see it my way. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. I think she broke her word, that shit's serious to me. To some that's just politics, oh well, whattaya gonna do?
But for future reference for all to decide for themselves...Here's the pledge:
THEREFORE, I _______________, Democratic Candidate for President, pledge I shall not campaign or participate in any state which schedules a presidential election primary or caucus before Feb. 5, 2008, except for the states of Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina, as “campaigning” is defined by the rules and regulations of the DNC. It does not include activities specifically related to raising campaign resources such as fundraising events or the hiring of fundraising staff.
Hillary tough enough to fight dirty for herself. I haven't seen her ruthlessness in pursuing of anything else.
Hillary is tough enough to fight dirty for herself. I haven't seen much ruthlessness in pursuing anything else.
Comments closed February 08, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
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