The MI/FL Excuse

Yesterday, Marc Ambinder reported "Another strategist, Harold Ickes, has told colleagues that he does not believe that she should think about dropping out until, at the very least, the questions of Florida and Michigan are resolved." It's worth pointing out that this makes no real sense. Nothing would do more to help resolve the Florida and Michigan issue than for Clinton to drop out and endorse Obama. If she did that, the only remaining issue would be to strike a balance between representing FL and MI at the convention and slapping FL and MI on the wrist hard enough that states don't pull this kind of stunt again. That's a needle you can thread any number of ways.

It's the fact that the campaign is continuing that makes the question difficult to resolve because it has both campaigns focused on maximizing their delegate counts rather than dealing with the aforementioned issue. Which, I suppose, is part of what makes it such an appealing pretext for staying in the race -- as a rationale it has a nice circular logic where the campaign can't end 'till MI and FL are resolved, but the issue can't be resolved until the campaign ends, so on and on we go.

Comments

"Which, I suppose, is part of what makes it such an appealing pretext for staying in the race -- as a rationale it has a nice circular logic where the campaign can't end 'till MI and FL are resolved, but the issue can't be resolved until the campaign ends, so on and on we go."

Well, of course, the Obama campaign could agree to some kind of compromise solution to MI & FL, just as they could've agreed to the DNC sanctioned MI & FL re-votes, but didn't.

Perhaps what Matthew meant to say is this:

Nothing would do more to help resolve the Florida and Michigan issue than for Obama to drop out and endorse Clinton

I'm sure Matthew's confusion on this point only comes from speaking at the library of a person who enabled an obscene war and thought the working class of America were worthless chumps. Oh, it's not Matthew's library? It's Nixon's?

Huh. I would've thought Matthew's tireless Iraq war advocacy and ongoing war on the working class were what was being discussed. At least Matthew hasn't engaged in taping his associates, to the best of our knowledge.

Posted by Petey | May 7, 2008 7:40 PM

1) If ANY attempt is made to give Hillary the nomination using the Michigan or Florida issue, then the Democratic leaders can kiss millions of Obama supporters goodbye -- and they can kiss the Democratic Party goodbye.

2) For Hillary to even be trying to exploit Florida or Michigan at this moment shows that she is so fundamentally DISHONEST -- and so indifferent to the Democratic Party -- that she does not deserve to be dogcatcher in Little Rock, much less President of the USA.

3) Democratic leaders had better not even think of pandering to her -- and to Florida and Michigan state leaders -- at this point.

Posted by Don Williams | May 7, 2008 7:42 PM

Matthew's statement in Yorba Linda:

"The people have a right to know if their pundit is a trust fund scumbag out to destroy the Democratic Party to justify his behavior in 2002 and 2003?"

"Well, I am not a trust fund scumbag out to destroy the Democratic Party to justify my behavior in 2002 and 2003."

Matthew holds up inverted V signs for victory and shakes his head in a mild tremor.

Posted by Petey | May 7, 2008 7:45 PM

Nothing would do more to help resolve the Florida and Michigan issue than for Obama to drop out and endorse Clinton

And if you go chasing rabbits
And you know you're going to fall
Tell 'em a hookah smoking caterpillar
Has given you the call
Recall Alice
When she was just small . . .

Posted by southpaw | May 7, 2008 7:51 PM

Rumors are spreading that Matthew will have to cancel tonight's appearance due to an outbreak of Phlebitis

Matthew will be recuperating at San Clemente to spend his trust fund dollars before returning to Saddle River.

Yglesias refuses all questions about his part in enabling the hundreds of thousands of deaths that have come about during the Iraq war due to his inveterate war hawking in 2002 and 2003. Matthew conveniently sees the blame as devolving down to other actors other than himself.

After the upcoming electoral disaster for the Democratic Party, Yglesias will again seek to shift the blame. He will be nominated for a Douglas Feithie Award in both 2008 and 2009, despite the stiff competition to be faced.

Posted by Petey | May 7, 2008 7:53 PM

I never support banning, but if Matt wanted to make an excpetion for Petey I'd have no problem with it.

Petey, why don't you take some time off and start working on your arguments for why McCain is the real progressive.

Posted by Eric k | May 7, 2008 7:54 PM

For a second, I thought the title of this post was "The MILF Excuse," and I thought maybe the Clinton camp had sunk to a new low.

Too crude for this blog? Perhaps.

Posted by Francisco The Man | May 7, 2008 7:56 PM

For a second, I thought the title of this post was "The MILF Excuse," and I thought maybe the Clinton camp had sunk to a new low.

Too crude for this blog? Perhaps.

Posted by Francisco The Man | May 7, 2008 7:56 PM

Petey the Predictor returns!

Tell us again, Uncle Petey, the one about how Clinton has the "inside track" to the nomination. We'll get some marshmellows for the campfire. Nobody can tell a tall tale like Uncle Petey.

Posted by Little Johnny | May 7, 2008 7:57 PM

Well, this thread is off to a lovely start...

Posted by Doug H. (Fausto no more) | May 7, 2008 7:57 PM

Hillary and her entourage including Harold Ickes are a bunch of transparently self-serving assholes. They had no regard for the voters of Michigan and Florida until they fell desperately behind in the contest and realized that their only hope was to steal a bunch of delegates out of those bogus elections. Hillary herself is on videotape proclaiming that the results from those two states would not count, and Ickes is a member of the DNC Rules Committee who voted to penalize MI and FL.

Posted by global yokel | May 7, 2008 8:01 PM

"Petey, why don't you take some time off and start working on your arguments for why McCain is the real progressive."

Because I'm not a sleazy "post-partisan" priest like you. Because I think policy matters in how government happens.

Because I'm a left, not an Andy Sullivan left-hater like you.

Posted by Petey | May 7, 2008 8:01 PM

Petey,

Lets look at whose more responsible for the Iraq war.

On the one hand we have Matt Y, a recent Harvard grad and obsucre blogger who supported the war mostly becasue he trusted people like Tom Daschle and gee, Hillary Clinton.

On the other hand we have Hillary Clinton, a Senator who didn't bother reading the NIE report or listening to her Colleague's like Bob Graham who did read it and then voted to authorize the war.

Yeah I guess your right, Matt is far more responisble than Hillary.

Seriously dude, your act got stale a long time ago, just fuck off already.

Posted by Eric k | May 7, 2008 8:02 PM

Don Williams

Goodbye to the Obama supporters!

His campaign is exploiting this by pretending the 2,000,000 voters do not matter. What about the votes that Obama received in FL? These people are angry at the Party.

You talk about pandering! Obama was "anointed" by the pundits. Matt and others have damaged their profession to throw this election. Senator Joseph McCarthy would be proud.

Posted by EWard | May 7, 2008 8:04 PM

I would say Matthew as a Harvard did far less to enable the war than, say, a certain US Senator for North Carolina who voted for it.

Posted by pittanylion | May 7, 2008 8:04 PM

To try to get this thread back on track after Captain Contrarian's meltdown...

Which, I suppose, is part of what makes it such an appealing pretext for staying in the race -- as a rationale it has a nice circular logic where the campaign can't end 'till MI and FL are resolved, but the issue can't be resolved until the campaign ends, so on and on we go.

It might sound like an appealing pretext, but there's no there there. The Democratic establishment was responsible for punishing Michigan and Florida, and now Clinton is making the case of re-instating them to... the Democratic establishment. The Democrats in the other forty-eight states who abided by the DNC's wishes are going to need more than cries of "Disenfranchisement!" if they're going to sway to her side of the debate. So far, they haven't received any.

Sound and fury, signifying nothing, etc... but it makes for a great sound byte to rally the followers.

Posted by Doug H. (Fausto no more) | May 7, 2008 8:10 PM

Because I'm a left, not an Andy Sullivan left-hater like you.

Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Though wise men at their end know dark is right,
Because their words had forked no lightning they
Do not go gentle into that good night.

Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright
Their frail deeds might have danced in a green bay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Wild men who caught and sang the sun in flight,
And learn, too late, they grieved it on its way,
Do not go gentle into that good night.

Grave men, near death, who see with blinding sight
Blind eyes could blaze like meteors and be gay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

And you, my father, there on the sad height,
Curse, bless me now with your fierce tears, I pray.
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Posted by southpaw | May 7, 2008 8:10 PM

Dude,

Go fuck yourself, I've been well to the left of Clinton since before you were likely born.

Most of us liberals support Obama because we recognize that Hillary is a centrist pro business DLC shill. Obama is left of her on every issue except health care mandates, which are meaningless. It isn't a coincidence that her health care plan is so similar to the one Mitt freakin' Romney introduced.

That you buy her nonsesens about mandates shows that you are either clueless or so pissed that your hero John Edwards lost that you have lost all sense of perpspective.

Posted by Eric k | May 7, 2008 8:12 PM

Hoo-boy! Nice comments, folks.

Back here on planet earth, MI and FL delegations will be seated according to some formula that will take into account the votes that took place in Jan but also will penalize the states for having pin-headed politicos who played chicken with the DNC and lost. Ideally, the supers would have no vote at the convention because they are the ones most responsible for the mess, but this is not an ideal world, this is planet earth. This compromise formula for MI and FL won't change the fact that Obama will be the Dem nominee, and right around the time that this compromise is announced, Clinton will concede and make nice. And we can all start focusing on what a disaster John McBush would be as president.

Posted by Jeff S. | May 7, 2008 8:17 PM

What Jeff S said.

Posted by Doug H. (Fausto no more) | May 7, 2008 8:22 PM

Francisco has a good point--perhaps we should call it the FLMI excuse/issue/talking point.

And Matt has a good and succinct point: nothing will hurry FLMI to resolution like that resolution not mattering. Had Clinton dropped out after her 12 straight losses like a sensible person, this would have been resolved in March. Not fully seated--that's a disaster for 2012. Halfsies in some form. Lots of people took them at their word and didn't vote--don't ignore them. Lots of states waited their turns--don't ignore them.

And Southpaw wins for most pointed post. Salut.

Posted by Deborah | May 7, 2008 8:26 PM

I'm going to suggest we can't tell Petey to go fuck himself enough around here. He's had his panties in a wad for weeks now.

Go fuck yourself Petey. Seriously. You're so friggin lame.

Posted by Jake | May 7, 2008 8:27 PM

1) Obama is only tiptoeing around this because Florida and Michigan still have 55 Superdelegates -- who I think will be seated even if the pledged delegates are not.

2) Earlier, there was an implicit threat that those Superdelegates could defect en masse to Hillary if their feelings were hurt. That could have been enough to restore Hillary's standing as a credible candidate two months ago and possibly swung several elections.

3) But We passing that point -- Time is on Obama's
side. At this point Michigan and Florida's Superdelegates are starting to realize that Obama will be the next President of the USA.

And each one of those Superdelegates has to now start asking himself: Do I feel LUCKY?

Do I want to fuck with this guy -- and have myself/my district suffer the consequences later?

Well DO you, Punks?

Posted by Don Williams | May 7, 2008 8:36 PM

Nothing would do more to help resolve the Florida and Michigan issue than for Obama to drop out and endorse Clinton

Petey, this is true. The only thing is, Obama is ahead and Clinton is behind, so the person who is generally going to get asked to pull out is Clinton.

That said, I have no problem with Clinton staying in, even though I support Obama. (I put up a post on my own blog about it.) All of the calls for her to drop out are based on very recent history and a misconception of the importance of unified political conventions.

Posted by Dilan Esper | May 7, 2008 8:40 PM

Maybe if it's just me, but if you do the math, if you gave Hillary & Obama the exact percentages of delegates corresponding to their received votes in FL & MI (Hillary got 50% in Fl, Obama got 33%, Hillary got 55% in MI, Obama not on the ballot), then Obama still leads Clinton.

So if Hillary got half of Florida's delegates, that's another 105, and Obama would get 70. From Michigan Hillary would get 86 delegates.

Right now (using the stats from DailyKos, I have no idea if they're different from others) Obama leads Clinton 1847.5 to 1697.

Adding 189 to Hillary's brings her to 1886, and adding 70 to Obama's brings him to 1917.50.

That's still a lead of 31.5 pledged delegates.

Unless the idea would be to have more delegates from MI & FL given to HRC. And that's assuming that no MI delegates are awarded to Obama given that per request he was not on the ballot. Or, in the following contests (W.Va & KY) she could maybe make up the delegate difference?

On the other hand, if they just apportion the delegates so, there's nothing to prevent a state next election from moving the primary up years in advance, like having the 2016 primary now.

Posted by El Cid | May 7, 2008 8:45 PM

1) The ONLY reason Hillary could have for continuing at this point is to coerce Obama into accepting her as Vice President. She floated that idea a few weeks ago.

2) Of course, her behavior in the past two months showed why Obama should cut his testicles off with a rusty saw before he agrees to Hillary as VP. Ole Hill herself has drowned that puppy.

Of course, if Obama had any question re what being politicaly married to Hillary would be like, he only had to look at Wild Bill's snow white hair.

Or look at her behavior in the Michigan/Florida issue and imagine putting up with that backstabbing dishonesty for the next 4 years.

Posted by Don Williams | May 7, 2008 8:51 PM

1) Plus, as I mentioned months ago, at least one Republican knows that Bill Clinton really, REALLY screwed the pooch on a matter of national security in 1999.

2) It's been hushed up so far, but leaking the story would have been enough to sink Hillary's campaign if she had received the nomination.

It could still sink Obama's campaign --just via guilt by association --if he is stupid enough to accept her as VP.

3) For one thing , it will make Hillary's 3 am Phone Call ad look like a very sick joke. A sick joke that the Republicans will not tire of repeating.

4) Think I'm kidding? Ask Melvin Dubee. Hart Senate Office Building, Room 211.

Posted by Don Williams | May 7, 2008 9:03 PM

Eward,

They have this thing called elections, people vote in them and the person with the most votes wins. Obama has the most votes. Chris Matthews and Keith Olberman didn't somehow annoint Obama as the nominee.

Posted by Eric K | May 7, 2008 9:07 PM

This Petey thing is weird -- ironically it most resembles liberals (generally NYC liberals) after 9/11 who became aggro supports of GWBush.

Posted by theCoach | May 7, 2008 9:11 PM

Petey, you are such a disgusting supporter of genocide I hope you choke on the blood of the thousands of murdered Iraqis that your heroes Hillary Clinton and the scumbag John Edwards sentenced to death.

Posted by Jonesy | May 7, 2008 9:13 PM

To those who are needlessly ganging up on Petey, I have to bring up something I said back when the poster "Jennifer" insisted on making her clockwork posts attacking Chris Ford:

Petey didn't start this, he didn't attack you, and he's a pretty constant figure on this blog, so unless you have a substantive criticism to make (and I'm certain you do), please shut the fuck up. I say this because attacking Petey is unnecessary (his posts, after all, stand on their own), and besides this, incredibly fucking annoying.

Oh, and Jonesy, as a suggestion, please learn how to use punctuation and the English language.

Posted by Greg | May 7, 2008 9:22 PM

Petey's even more bitter about his Indiana prediction from Monday being horribly and colossally wrong than I thought he'd be. I wonder how much money he lost on Intrade? :-)

Posted by Phaedrus | May 7, 2008 9:30 PM

Heh, the Hillary folk around here have been wailing in the streets thanks to InTrade.

Posted by Greg | May 7, 2008 9:34 PM

If Clinton does drop out, I'm not sure that anything more needs to be done to FL and MI in order to ensure that no state tries to contravene DNC rules next time around. They will have already been deprived of any role in choosing the nominee, even if their full delegations are seated -- because the delegations will be seated only after the nominee has been chosen. That seems OK to me.

Posted by Matt Weiner | May 7, 2008 9:38 PM

he's a pretty constant figure on this blog

Well, that makes up for being a pretty constant ass.

Too much of the internet is prone to this weird fallacy that treats frequency of posting and consistency of character--the more asinine the better--as license for juvenile behavior. Petey, amazingly, seems to have worn out this particular corner's tolerance for whiny man-children.

Posted by Marc | May 7, 2008 9:39 PM

I'm also for just ignoring Petey.

Anyway, yes this makes no sense, but the question is whether it will nonetheless work as a delaying tactic. I'm guessing no, largely because I doubt the media will calculate that an ongoing rhetorical war over MI and FL is likely to attract readers/viewers and sell ads.

Posted by DTM | May 7, 2008 9:44 PM

1) If not count Michigan and Florida votes, then the Democratic leaders can kiss millions of Hillary's supporters goodbye -- and they can kiss the Democratic Party goodbye for ever.

Posted by nobama | May 7, 2008 10:08 PM

1) My understanding is that NONE of the Superdelegates from Michigan or Florida has committed to either Hillary or Obama.

See http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/superdelegates/index.html

2) A cocked gun in the past -- but now the powder's getting wet.

Posted by Don Williams | May 7, 2008 10:13 PM

Jonesy's post is in fact correct grammatically and in its use of punctuation.

Posted by dfw | May 7, 2008 10:16 PM

I agree that FL/MI will be resolved before she drops out of the race, but I'm almost certain that she won't make any efforts to find a suitable resolution to the problem until she's made the personal decision to start packing it up and quit soon.

This race can't possibly end with those two states still in doubt because the entire rationale for her continued campaign for the past two months was that the race was a dead heat and that FL and MI could put her over the top if they're seated in full. She's convinced so many of her followers of this myth that ending the race with those two still up in the air would leave those dead-enders feeling angry and cheated, which might pose a problem for the Democrats in November.

If she decides its over and chooses to bow out gracefully and do what is best for the party she'll likely accept a suitable compromise before leaving in order to avoid hurt feelings and burnt bridges. Either that, or she could go scorched earth by continuing to make ridiculous disenfranchisement accusations and play the victim card by acting like the big bad boys club of the media and the party are forcing her to quit while she still has a chance. Hopefully that's not going to happen and she has enough sense and civility to do the right thing, but her actions so far have made me sincerely question that.

Posted by bwaage | May 7, 2008 10:32 PM

Seating FL And MI Is About November
By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:55:25 PM EST

Barack Obama is almost certainly going to be the nominee. As I wrote to our friend Markos today (yes, he is still a good friend of Talk Left), it is in Barack Obama's and the Democratic Party's interest to seat the delegations. I assume Democrats in all races, including the Presidential race, want to compete in Florida and Michigan. Seating their delegation contributes greatly to that.

That's why I think attitudes like that exhibited by Matt Yglesias are totally misguided. If Obama loses the nomination, it won't be because Florida and Michigan are seated. It will take a huge meltdown for that to happen. On the other hand, seating Florida and Michigan could very well contribute to Democratic victories in Florida and Michigan, including at the top of the ticket.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

Posted by nobama | May 7, 2008 10:37 PM

Matt: If your parents paid for your education you owe them an apology.

Posted by myiq2xu | May 7, 2008 10:46 PM

I've seen extremely little evidence that general election voters in FL and MI intend to punish the Democratic Party's nominee if FL and MI don't get delegates at the convention. Indeed, to the extent general election voters care at all (and keep in mind lots of general election voters typically don't vote in primaries), they mostly seem angry at their own local politicians. Which of course makes sense, since it is their local politicians who are to blame.

Posted by DTM | May 7, 2008 10:52 PM

I live in FL and I can tell you that no one is walking around fretting about the FL primary situation.

The vast vast majority of people do not care; many don't even understand fully what happened.

People will be far more concerned about defeating a 3rd Bush term than anything else.

The whole issues of FL and MI are another example of a controversy generated by the Clinton campaign only to be played up by the media. It's much ado about nothing.

Posted by cm | May 7, 2008 11:02 PM

well nobama please run back to TalkLikeMeOrYourBanned and tell Big Tent Dumbass to kiss my ass. Then remind him that Hillary Clinton signed a pledge that these 2 states would not be a part of the process, so I expect her to live up to her words. You can also tell him that any election where the people were told before the votes were cast that the result would not count is illegitimate.

Posted by bjd | May 7, 2008 11:10 PM

My understanding is that NONE of the Superdelegates from Michigan or Florida has committed to either Hillary or Obama.

Not true. See here. Governor Jennifer Granholm of Michigan, Senator Bill Nelson of Florida, Senator Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, and Congresspeople Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Alcee Hastings, Corrine Brown, Kendrick Meek, Sander Levin, Dale Kildee, and John Dingell, as well as 5 DNC hacks, have endorsed Clinton.

Congressman John Conyers, Congressman Bob Wexler, and Congresswoman Kathy Castor, as well as several more DNC hacks, have endorsed Obama.

Posted by John | May 7, 2008 11:21 PM

"On the other hand, seating Florida and Michigan could very well contribute to Democratic victories in Florida and Michigan, including at the top of the ticket."

Well, since Obama will agree to seat MI/Fl, it's rather a pointless argument you're making, isn't it?

You can take issue with what you believe is an inopportune atttitude on Matt's part, but I'm not sure that it's his job to make everyone feel good about the latest tactic (read: Hail Mary) floated by the Clinton Campaign. Matt is, in fact, correct, that Hillary's withdrawal would almost immediately resolve the MI/FL issue and would allow greater time for healing and recovery, expecially in MI/Fl. Pursuing this latest gimmick, does nothing but delay the inevitable.

Being the gentleman that he is, I'm sure Obama will agree to the "new math" to insure that there are no hard feelings (who knows, maybe he's as sick of this as everyone else and will say, "No, enough is enough). Were he to do so, it should not be construed to imply Hillary's genuine concern for FL/MI voters since this latest gambit betrays a level of political cynicism that bears little resemblance to any altruistic motives.

"If Obama loses the nomination, it won't be because Florida and Michigan are seated."

Actually, now Obama cannot lose the nomination (yes, I know, barring some implosion). Hillary's momentum pretty much ended in Pennsylvania. All that really matters now is how much damage she causes before she loses.

Posted by Rihilism | May 7, 2008 11:23 PM

WTF. So apparently in a recent USA Today interview, Clinton makes a case for her electability by pointing out that she wins the votes of "hard-working, white Americans." Which is perhaps true on its face, but very infelicitously phrased and is sure to raise some eyebrows. So I guess bowing out with dignity is out of the question for her.

Posted by Abby | May 7, 2008 11:33 PM

1) If not count Michigan and Florida votes, then the Democratic leaders can kiss millions of Hillary's supporters goodbye -- and they can kiss the Democratic Party goodbye for ever.

People who keep pressing versions of this argument really need to address the fact that despite this horrible outrage visited upon the voters of Michigan, Obama continues to outpoll Clinton in head to head matchups against McCain there.

Posted by djw | May 7, 2008 11:44 PM

John
Thanks for the info on the Hillary/Obama endorsements by the Michigan /Florida Superdelegates.

So it looks like 35 out of
55 Superdelegates from FL or MI are still withholding endorsements?

Do you know why your source says MI/FL Superdelegates votes aren't currently counted?

I thought the clusterfuck with the early primaries only affected the PLEDGED DELEGATES selected by the primary election. Why would Superdelegates -- who have their vote by virtue of their position --be affected?

Posted by Don Williams | May 7, 2008 11:54 PM

FL/MI delegates won't be seated - that is the resolution. The situation was resolved last year.

Anything at this point that results in those delegates being seated isn't a "resolution", it's changing the rules after the fact, and after everyone agreed to them.

Posted by Chet | May 7, 2008 11:59 PM

Why would Superdelegates -- who have their vote by virtue of their position --be affected?

Because they were the people who decided to violate the rule in the first place.

Posted by Jinchi | May 8, 2008 12:02 AM

The long term solution has to NOT be slapping MI and FL on the wrist, but fixing the NH/Iowa monopoly.

Posted by Anthony Damiani | May 8, 2008 12:05 AM

In Re: FL/MI

Repeat after me: It. Doesn't. Matter.

In a Clinton campaign conference call with reporters on Wednesday, three top advisers acknowledged that even if all the delegates from disputed primaries in Michigan and Florida were seated at the Democratic convention, Mrs. Clinton would still not have enough delegates to claim the nomination.

Phil Singer, a spokesman for the campaign, estimated that in a best-case event, where the Michigan and Florida delegates were apportioned according to each state’s popular vote, Mrs. Clinton would still be about 100 delegates shy of the number needed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/08/us/politics/08campaign.html?pagewanted=2&hp

The Obama campaign will have delegates from those two states seated, as part of the healing process, and because Obama is not stupid. Hill will smile and endorse. It's over, people. Get over yourselves. This is is not a race any more, it's kabuki.

Posted by Jeff S. | May 8, 2008 12:06 AM

That's still a lead of 31.5 pledged delegates.

The problem with that: it would presumably be easier for the Clinton goons to flip 32 pledged Obama delegates on the convention floor than 150.

There's no telling what may come of the second stage of grief in the Clinton campaign. I wouldn't put Hillary above being vindictive. Hillary, and some of the people around her, is not the type of person to accept blame for these losses. She will invariably blame Obama. I would not be surprised to see a Reverend Wright book tour in the works for August as an 'I told you so'. Therefore, it makes sense for Obama to protect his lead for insurance.

Posted by JL | May 8, 2008 12:23 AM

The long term solution has to NOT be slapping MI and FL on the wrist, but fixing the NH/Iowa monopoly.

A national primary, or anything like it, severely disadvantages anybody without massive name recognition or a huge advertising budget. Retail politics in small states like IA and NH allow the candidates to get their message out and build some momentum before the big states. The DNC introduced NV and SC into the mix to try to introduce some more diversity (both racial and geographical) into the mix. Any state that wanted to go after them, on Feb 5, could. MI and FL thought that they were better than everybody else, out of proportion to their size, and jumped the queue. As a result they were penalized. Unless we want our primary for 2012 to start next may, we've got to let the penalty (or some penalty) stick.

Posted by ben | May 8, 2008 12:24 AM

Hey Yglesias, where are the homophones? Do you really have a fulltime meatspace spell-checker now? I can't sense any editorial content altering, but the spice is gone.

Posted by Russell L. Carter | May 8, 2008 12:39 AM

LEAVE HILLARY ALONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I quite agree with Matt, yet I think the idea of heading back to the Senate to author, say, a gas tax holiday bill, would seem too boring after all the hard effort of the world's longest ever campaign.

WV and KY offer her the chance to gain her widest margins, up there between AR and RI. That's as much bolstering as she can possibly get to make her case to the Supers and I think she has every right to make that case.

I don't believe she'll convince enough of them to ever regain the lead. And as far as MI and FL go, nobody, not even MI delegates, have ever defined a way to fairly settle that one without a revote. And polls indicate they both run competitively against McCain because no-one feels disenfranchised. FL is different. They were sandbagged by a GOP governor and legislature. But it wasn't Obama who elected them. It was crossover Dems and independents from FL.

Based on the rules, I believe a 30% discount would be the fairest outcome, even though I believe a full campaign there would have made the numbers closer. For states holding a later primary, the DNC was prepared to add as many as 30% more delegates as an incentive, so just reverse that: 30% less for Clinton and 30% less for Obama. Then do a 30% reduction for MI and split the group 50-50.

I haven't done the math so I don't know where both would end up numerically, but just reading the rules, that's more fair a settlement than any that don't involve a revote. It maintains the right of the DNC to maintain some control over the schedule, it allows the disenfranchisement claim to die, it charitably grants Clinton an edge that's not warranted by the rules she campaigned under, and it might be sufficient to gain the consent of the guy most adversely impacted, Obama.

And even then, after he wins the nomination, he's still unlikely to win Florida in the general, because Florida's a purple state that's growing redder and older. And they still won't vote for any but a Blue Dog Democrat.

He will, however, defeat McCain in MI. And his proven competitiveness in MO, WI, MN, MT, CO, NM, IA, and NV continue to make him perfectly viable, thereby defeating the Clinton claim that he cannot win the general.

So let her make her case; I trust the supers are perfectly capable of reply in a sensible way. They're far more concerned about disenfranchising the newly registered grassroots groundswell - the future of the party - than they are about anything else.

It's all so predictable, so let it play out. And if that leads to a deadlocked convention and destroys the party, I'd hardly consider that a tragic outcome. After all, if the supers are foolish enough to bring it to that, the party's simply not sufficiently pragmatic enough to maintain its own viability. Nature provides the perfect result for species incapable of sustaining itself: extinction.

Posted by Kevin Hayden | May 8, 2008 12:44 AM

Upon re-reading, let me clarify: the 30% reduction applies to both states, but the 50-50 split afterward applies only to MI.

Posted by Kevin Hayden | May 8, 2008 12:48 AM

a person who enabled an obscene war and thought the working class of America were worthless chumps.

Uh, Petey? There isn't a Hillary Clinton Library yet.

(You left that one hang right over the plate.)

Got an answer yet on how, in a parallel America, Hillary Clinton would have enough Dems in the Senate to pass her healthcare bill?

As for FL/MI: any resolution has to contain some sanction, otherwise you get NY and CA demanding first-in-the-nation status, and the nomination to the candidate with the biggest campaign chest. One would hope that's not something the DNC would need to consider until 2016, but it'll still be hanging when the time comes.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | May 8, 2008 12:53 AM

The Pundit Excuse

There is a backroom deal taking place between Obama and the Party Leaders. It stinks! We are to believe that these voters do not matter.

Obama has secretly courted superdelegates while losing the big-swing states of CA, MI, FL, OH, TX, and PA. If the DNC, Obama, and the superdelegates want to fix this nominating process, the race is illegitimate.

Most of the leaders asking Hillary to drop out are all losers. We have McGovern, Kerry, Kennedy, and Hart.

The best candidate should have the support of a core group of Democratic voters needed to win in November.

Obama might be the nominee, but he will be the second coming of George McGovern.

Posted by EWard | May 8, 2008 1:48 AM

Howard Dean and the Far-Left, Wealthy, Elite of the Democratic Party fear that a second Clinton presidency would also focus on political expediency, reaching out across the isle when necessary, and failing to implement their radical agenda and failing to focus on their attempt to seize total political control.

As a result, the elite of the Democratic Party decided that their best interests would be served by supporting a candidate that would drive forward their agenda and would not depart from the elite party line. The DNC leadership along with the powerful and wealthy far-left elite decided to turn their back on Clinton, just as they previously had turned their back on Joe Lieberman.

So here is the question… How do you overcome the Clinton Political Machine and install your own elitist candidate and take political control of your party? Last fall, Clinton was the quintessential Democratic front-runner. She garnished popular support from nearly every segment of the Democratic Coalition: Low Income and Middle Income Democrats, Democratic Senior Citizens with high voting consistency and turnout, Unionized Democrats, the African-American Community and Hispanic Community.

The Answer… You create your own candidate from a blank slate and opportunistically disenfranchise large segments of the Clinton voter coalition.

The far-left elite of the Democratic Party had found the ideal candidate: A well spoken, inexperienced junior senator from Illinois. Barack Obama was a blank slate: inexperienced (no political skeletons in the closet), a powerful speaker, African-American, and had never crossed party lines or the Democrat Elitist Agenda on any major issue. The wealthy and elite now had their candidate.

Step One: Paint your ideal candidate as a great unifier, able to end the divisiveness in Washington and change the political polarization that Hillary Clinton represented. Although Barack Obama had little experience, he also did not bear the scars of previous political fights or have the political skeletons in his closet. Although Obama has essentially voted directly down party lines and has shown no ability to work with the Republican Party, the DNC, unchallenged, was able to paint the highly liberal Obama as a moderate politician able to transcend party lines.

Step Two: Overcome Obama’s inexperience by utilizing his great speaking skills. Because Obama is a great speaker, he is able to talk about change and focus the election, not on his experience, but on his Judgment of opposing the “evil” Bush Administration. By pushing a highly populist agenda that a large government can solve our individual problems, and deflecting all of our nation’s problems onto the unpopular Bush Administration, American Voters have been hypnotized into overlooking Obama’s policy positions and elitist views. For instance, Obama's calling for an increase in taxes on people making over $200,000 per year, so that the middle class does not suffer higher taxes. But at the same time, calling for the raising or removal of the tax cap on social security; a policy that would automatically increase taxes by over 6% on every middle class American making $80,000 - $200,000 per year.

Step Three: Break up the Clinton voter Coalition. By choosing Obama, as the elite-left’s choice, Dean and his cohorts automatically removed a major segment of the Clinton Coalition: The African American Vote. As any politically attuned person knows, Democrats traditionally carry 80%-90% of the African-American Vote. In a general election the black vote makes up 15%-20% of the electorate, with an even higher ratio of 20%-40% in the democratic primaries. By removing this block of Clinton Supporters, the DNC was able to drastically change the outlook of this primary.

Next, the elite-left leadership put together a strategy for Obama to campaign directly to the middle-upper class of the Democratic Party and take advantage of Obama’s youth and idealistic inexperience to attract the youth vote from the University systems. Although a relative non-factor in past elections, a motivated youth vote could offset the Clinton stronghold on the senior votes.

Step Four: Use A Rove Strategy. During the primary season, candidates have typically relied upon only a handful of key states that vote early in determining the outcome of their candidacy. Most candidates dump a majority of the resources into these key states. Using a Karl Rove type strategy, the elite-left leadership encouraged the Obama Campaign to focus not on states such as New York, California and Massachusetts, where Clinton would likely pick up large numbers of delegates; but rather focus resources on smaller Midwestern caucus states in which voter turnout was typically low (meaning that an influx of younger voters and African-American voters could easily swing the outcome), and Obama could piecemeal enough small victories to offset the delegate counts from the larger states.

The strategy would give Obama an opportunity to make this race tight, but it would also require that he win early and build a lead. Here is where the DNC took full advantage of voters. With 20 states, such as Illinois, moving up there primaries to have a greater influence; states such as Florida and Michigan, which have traditionally been key states in general elections looked to maintain their importance by assuring that their primaries played a more influential role. The problem for the elite-left was that these states were Clinton strongholds, and they knew that the traditionally the candidate who became the front-runner after the early primaries, would also become the benefactor of momentum and massive endorsements as the party unified behind them. In order for the elite-left to maintain any opportunity to seize total control of the party, they made the decision not to penalize Florida and Michigan, but rather to completely strip these states of their delegates; disenfranchising millions over Democratic voters residing in key general election states. Prior to the DNC delegate stripping plan, most pendants expected the DNC to penalize candidates who campaigned in these states with up to half of the delegates from the states. Thereby, allowing Florida and Michigan voters to have a strong influence in the election, but also penalize the states by removing the campaign attention they received. The stripping of Florida and Michigan’s delegates is not only important because these were well-known Clinton strongholds, but more importantly, the early momentum Clinton would have gained from these contests would have carried over into Super Tuesday.

Dean and the rest of the far-left elite knew first hand the importance of the earliest primaries. Dean’s ailing campaign experienced a boom of momentum and funds after his early victory in the 2004 primaries, quickly becoming a front-runner who self-destructed as quickly as he had risen. With Florida and Michigan’s 350+ delegates removed (roughly 8%-9% of the total available delegates) the elite focused on the Iowa caucuses. Knowing that Clinton & Edwards would split the working class vote, Obama’s campaign was able to take the state. With Iowa came momentum, a wholesale shift in African-American Support, and a steady flow of elite democratic endorsements.

The wealthy and elite far-left of the party however still had to overcome the other large states where Clinton garnished support. They needed to take advantage of the ways delegates were awarded in order to suppress a potential comeback by Clinton. On Super Tuesday and afterwards, the Obama campaign and far left have focused on caucus states with lower turnout and more easily manipulated by the influx of first time African-American and youth vote turnout. Building a small lead on Super Tuesday, the elite left began rolling out endorsement after endorsement for Obama, and worked diligently to create the façade that Obama’s delegate lead could not be overcome. In previous primaries, these endorsements and calls to unity worked, and Dean and the Elite-Left assumed that the unprepared Clinton campaign would fade quietly into the night, therefore solidifying their power-grab.

The Clinton’s fight-on not only to preserve their families’ political influence, but I believe that because both Clinton’s genuinely care about the United States and our proud of this nation. Although Hillary Clinton continues to campaign on a populist platform, which I believe is not what has made this country great, she does maintain a genuine concern and appreciation of the public. Unlike Obama, Clinton does not view this nation as a second-class society that needs to have their hands held by those few enlightened individuals who look down upon America and speak to Americans as if we are misguided children.

STEP FIVE: DO NOT TREAT ALL VOTES EQUALLY. Our forefathers had the insight to abandon a pure democratic society and implement policies that would equalize & protect American voters from politicians that would pander on focus on only densely populated areas, unequally distributing rights and wealth into these areas, in an attempt to secure and maintain political power. They understood that the lifeblood of our vast and diverse nation existed in every American, not just in the big cities. It is ironic that today, the very fear of our founding fathers is coming to fruition before our very eyes. The elite-left understood that with their proportional delegation system, that if Obama could piecemeal together enough delegates through the caucus states, and states with a large African-American turnout, then his home state of Illinois would give him enough delegates to prevent Clinton from overcoming his narrow lead. The Elite-Left focused on imbalanced delagatory policies that existed within Clinton Strongholds.

Texas: Clinton wins a majority vote with a 4 point lead. Clinton also wins in over 80% of all counties in Texas and 18 of the 31 congressional districts. Yet, after the Texas caucuses in which less than 10% of Texas democrats participated, Obama walks away 99 Delegates to Clinton’s 93, essentially disenfranchising the 1.45 million Texans that gave Clinton a Primary Victory.

Ohio: Clinton Wins Ohio by 10 points (54%-44%), a landslide by political standards. Obama only wins in 5 of the over 70 counties in the state, and Clinton also achieves victories in 14 of the 18 congressional districts. Yet, because of delegates being disproportionately awarded to districts in densely populated areas, Obama walks away with nearly 47% of the delegates.

Pennsylvania: Clinton wins by 9 points, again a landslide by political standards.
Clinton wins in over 90% of counties and 14 of 19 congressional districts. Yet, like Ohio, Obama walks away with nearly 47% of the delegates.

In reality, as of May 2nd, Obama only led Clinton by 159 pledged delegates, less than 5% of the total available Democratic Delegates. Obama also leads the popular vote, not including the disenfranchised Florida and Michigan by around 500,000 votes. In Illinois, Obama won by more than 600,000 votes. Yet these numbers don’t include the millions of votes disenfranchised in Florida and Michigan; and the inconsistent and imbalanced method of awarding delegates in states such as Pennsylvania, who clearly demonstrate that a vote in Pittsburgh doesn’t quite equal a vote in Pennsylvania.

Howard Dean and his far-left, wealthy, and elitist backers, expected the Clinton Campaign to fold after Super Tuesday. Supported by elitist endorsements, media friendly coverage of Obama, and the disenfranchisement of millions of Democratic voters nationwide, the elitist far-left has clearly shown that this election is not about working class America but rather about power.

I commend the Clinton campaign for continuing to fight for what they believe is best for this nation. Democratic Elite have blamed the Clintons for causing chaos in the Democratic Primaries and possibly damaging the party in November. However, let’s remember that until January, Clinton was the front-runner and presumably would be anointed the Democratic nominee. Most political analysts agreed that unless she stumbled and fell, or self-destructed, she could not lose the nomination. The fact is that Hillary Clinton did not stumble or fall, her campaign did not self-destruct. So I ask: What Changed????

Many political pundits want to compare this primary season to the political civil wars that happened in 1912 and 1968. However, unlike those previous party breakups whereas moderates battled for control against the far-right or far-left; the civil war occurring now in the Democratic party is being fought by the far-left elitist faction and the left-of-center Clinton machine, with moderate Democrats dumbfounded sitting on the sidelines. Now is the time for moderate Democrats to stand up to the rich, elitist, far-left leadership of their party and end the polarization caused by these elitists who will suppress any voice of opposition and end the madness.

Sidenote: How is it that John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, and the Governor of Massachusetts, all super delegates, support a candidate that lost by 15 points among their constituents? Perhaps, just perhaps, power is more important than the voters.

J Brown
05/05/2008

Posted by vote for McCain | May 8, 2008 2:24 AM

I love how the "new coalition" Democrats think they can just trash all over the "old coalition" Democrats - those of us working class, women, poor or uneducated, rural, white, Latino, Asian, gay/lesbian, what used to be the core of the party.

But their plan for winning the election appears to be a combination of "we don't need them anyhow" and "they'll unify with the party - we don't have to listen to them (it's okay to call them filthy names)".

Add rude abrasive men suggesting that Clinton supporters owe it to the party that is currently trashing on them to shaddup quitcher whining and get appropriately submissive - vote for the candidate we're told to vote for. Or else Republicans might win (and Republicans are bad because they tell their women to shaddup quitcher whining and get appropriately submissive).

Great election tactics the Dems have going for '08.

Posted by jacilyn | May 8, 2008 2:43 AM

Obama was "anointed" by the pundits.

Luckily for us, he was also "anointed" by:

a) a plurality of voters

b) a plurality of states

c) a plurality of pledged delegates

Dude: I don't know how to break this to you, but . . . it's over for Hillary.

You can be part of the problem, and go for John McCain (i.e. more of the same) or part of the solution, and join us to defeat George W. Bush's party which has inflicted untold suffering on the world.

Your choice.

Posted by chuck | May 8, 2008 2:44 AM

i stumbled across this page looking for naked pictures of chuck todd, but after skimming these posts, i'm too disgusted to make love to a sock. thanks a bunch.

Posted by strobopotamus | May 8, 2008 3:19 AM

I think poster "vote for McCain" well illustrates why Rush Limbaugh was urging Republicans and Independents to vote for Hillary.

Hillary will play ball with the Republican patrons. She will be a Republican in Democrat's clothing.

Obama will not -- which is why the Republican propaganda machine has to desperately make up lie after lie to attack him.

That is why --with 4000 men dead in an unnecessary war and thousands more crippled for life -- we have a despicable piece of shit like "vote for McCain" posting here.

Posted by Don Williams | May 8, 2008 3:26 AM

Looking At Obama and Black Liberation Theology

Barack Obama belongs to an unabashedly Black African-centered church. Its teachings focus on a «black value» system. It has knowledgeable Americans questioning how Obama's church (Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ) and its pastor, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Jr. influence the man who wants to be President of the United States.

Why couldn't Obama have chosen to be a Methodist, a Pentecostal or a Lutheran? What drew him to a church that many find questionable?

Many Americans attend churches their parents attended. Others choose denominations where they are comfortable with the teachings.

As a whole, the United Church of Christ does not teach black liberation theology. The main Conference of the denomination is responsible for the theological teachings of its churches and the manner in which they are presented.

The nagging question begs to be answered. Why would the top Democrat presidential candidate feel more comfortable attending an Afrocentric church? Obama's attendance at a church that encourages blacks to separate themselves from the rest of American society must be explained. How can he claim to be able to unite and reach across to all the people in the nation?

Excerpts from the Trinity United Church of Christ — Black Value System:

The Pastor as well as the membership of Trinity United Church of Christ is committed to a 10-point Vision:

A congregation committed to ADORATION.

A congregation preaching SALVATION.

A congregation actively seeking RECONCILIATION.

A congregation with a non-negotiable COMMITMENT TO AFRICA.

A congregation committed to BIBLICAL EDUCATION.

A congregation committed to CULTURAL EDUCATION.

A congregation committed to the HISTORICAL EDUCATION OF AFRICAN PEOPLE IN DIASPORA.

A congregation committed to LIBERATION.

A congregation committed to RESTORATION.

A congregation working towards ECONOMIC PARITY.

American society has changed positively since the days of Martin Luther King and the freedom marches. Why is there this need by some to retreat back to the days of separatism while claiming that they are moving society forward?

Many people do not understand what black liberation theology is. If Mitt Romney found it necessary to make a speech about his Mormon faith, it's about time that Obama explain black theology.

There has been much controversy over faith in this election year. However, Obama's church leaves something to be desired regarding social acceptability of its ideology. «Thus saith the Lord» is taught in quite a different fashion.

Black theology teachings began in America during the Civil Rights Movement. A demanding authority of presumptuousness was ushered in claiming black theology as the legitimate Voice of God to all black Americans.

The central theme of black theology puts an emphasis on the oppression of the black people. All aspects of this type of theology become a «subjugating theme.»

According to mainstream doctrinal teaching, black theology falls short. Its cornerstone is one which focuses on the oppression of blacks. The biblical teaching in mainstream Christian denominations is Christ-centered. Their focus is the Lord Jesus Christ who was to come, came, and is coming once again, and will reign forever. «I am the LORD; and they shall be my people.» (Jeremiah 24:7)

Is black theology one of hope or does it purposefully dredge up painful feelings of victimization? If that be the case, it would be wiser to consider a church where it is fully understood that God is no respecter of color or gender. (Acts 10:34)

The terminology of black theology is questionable amongst many biblical theologians. Its teaching is improperly centered in human pragmatism. The Lordship of Jesus Christ is not held in proper biblical perspective. Freedom has been granted to all who have become believers of the Living Word. We show our faith in Christ by living upright and reaching out in love to others.

If Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. is not asking the most important question of all, «who is Christ?», then he does his congregation a disservice. For it is from this premise that all questions can be answered. The teaching of a theology written by black men for black man presented to an exclusive segment of society can only be a stumbling block to God and a nation that was founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs.

Accepting Christ as Savior makes all the difference in the perception of the believer's life. His or her status in life is made abundantly clear. This question of what God has done through Christ is focused upon and no longer in doubt when we learn that we are God's children.

Is Christ able to save you? Is it the Lord who brings positive changes in your life today? Is the believer's walk moving forward and touching others for Christ's sake? The answer ought to be «yes,» no matter what the color of our skin or gender.

In the final analysis, only by beginning to ask these questions for a starting point of Christian theology can black theology be defined. When one knows who Jesus Christ is, then man can begin to understand where God is in man's existence and problems, and how Christ will provide the help man so desperately needs.

The days of segregation are over. «There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.» (Galatians 3:28 )

The Goals Of Black Liberal Theology — Dr. Robert A. Morley, an internationally recognized scholar in the fields of theology and apologetics.

«l.The goals of Black liberal theology are to turn religion into sociology, Christianity into a political agenda, Jesus into a black Marxist rebel, and the gospel into violent revolution. They are more interested in politics than preaching the gospel.

«III. The Methodology of Black Liberal Theology

«The main method employed by Black liberal theology is to manipulate embittered young blacks by turning their feelings of inferiority, alienation, jealousy, hopelessness and self-hate, into racist rage against whites, Orientals and affluent blacks who are conveniently blamed for their lack of personal initiative to better their lot in life.

«IV. The Main Philosophic Error of Black Liberal Theology

«Black liberal theology is based upon the philosophic error of relativism in which 'Jesus' is viewed as only a religious symbol which can be interpreted anyway they want. Thus it does not matter who and what the historical Jesus really was. Black liberal theology invented a black Marxist Jesus to lead the way to violent revolution because such a 'Jesus' will serve their purpose. Black liberal theology is condemned in II Cor. 11:4 and Gal. 1:8-9.

«V. The Racism Of Black Liberal Theology

«While Black liberal theology is filled with racist statements against whites and Orientals, it is primarily a form of 'black on black' racism. The following evidence demonstrates this to be true.

«A. While Black liberal theology claims to give blacks a better self-image, they unwittingly encourage a poor self-image among blacks by defining «blackness» in such negative terms as 'the poor,' 'the oppressed,' and 'niggers.' Why do they always define the 'black experience' in such negative terms? Why do they assume that all blacks live in the ghetto subsisting on welfare in the midst of crime and filth?

«B. With its constant emphasis on God loves the poor, the oppressed, etc. Black liberal theology actually paralyzes and demoralizes blacks to accept a parasitic life- style dependent on the government dole instead of fostering self-reliance and entrepreneurship.

«C. It seems to me that Black liberal theology feeds off of class envy and racist rage. Instead of spending their time blaming the white man for the black man's problems, Black liberal theology ought to be encouraging black men or women to become financially successful through hard work and self-reliance.

«D. Black liberal theology often describes the black man as a helpless victim of forces and people beyond his control. But this negative stereotype often leads people to accept poverty, drugs, crime and filth as their unalterable fate.

«E. Black liberal theology makes a great mistake when it assumes that poverty automatically means crime and filth. Just because you are poor does not mean you have a license to rob, rape, or murder others. The poor are for the most part good and honest people. Crime is crime regardless of who commits it. Poverty is no excuse for criminality.

«F. Black liberal theology judges people on the basis of the color of their skin instead of the content of their character.

«G. Black liberal theology gives the impression that the black man's problem is his skin instead of his sin.

«H. Most Black liberal theology books glorify rage, hatred and violence instead of faith, hope and love.

«I. Black liberal theology preaches race instead of grace as the solution to problems.

«J. Black liberal theology cries out for political liberation instead of spiritual salvation.

«K. Black liberal theology thinks more of Marx than it does of Jesus.

«L. Black liberal theology is more interested in black culture than in Jesus Christ.

«VI. The Liberalism Of Black Liberal Theology

«Black liberal theology is not a fundamental, Bible-believing, Christ-honoring theology. Black liberal theology was created by white liberation theologians at white liberal seminaries and universities that are radically anti-Christian and anti-Bible.

«A. Most of those involved in Black liberal theology do not believe in the Trinity, the deity of Christ, His virgin birth, sinless life, vicarious death, bodily resurrection, literal ascension or return to this world. They claim that all such doctrines are 'Western.'

«B. Many of those who teach Black liberal theology openly deny the immortality of the soul, a conscious after-life in heaven or hell, the resurrection of the dead, the Last Judgment and the eternal conscious torment of the damned in hell. They usually say that hell is 'being black on welfare in the ghetto.' They attack those blacks who talk about heaven as a 'pie in the sky by and by slave mentality.'

«C. Black liberal theology often denounces Christianity as racist and the 'white man's religion.' But then it turns around and claims that Jesus was black. If Jesus was a black man, then how can Christianity be the 'white man's religion?'

«D. Most Black liberal theology writers deny the inspiration, inerrancy and authority of the Bible while at the same time using it to foster their racist agenda.

«E. Black liberal theology just like the KKK and other racist groups claims that its race is the sole source of all that is good in all cultures. But this is a two edged sword. If the blacks are responsible for all the good in the world, then they are equally responsible for all the evil. To claim that the black man can do no wrong and that the white man and yellow man can do no good, is absurd as well as racist.

«F. Black liberal theology claims that the ancient Greeks were black and thus Greek philosophy was created by blacks. But then Black liberal theology also says that the white Greeks stole their philosophy from African blacks. How can the Greeks be black and white at the same time? But if they were all blacks, then what is wrong with blacks sharing ideas?

«G. Black liberal theology claims that the Greeks stole their ideas from black Africans and thus all the good in Western culture comes from blacks. But if this is true, how can Black liberal theology condemn Western culture on one hand and then claim that it came from blacks on the other hand?

«H. Black liberal theology also claims that all the good in Oriental culture came from African blacks. The Orientals thus stole their culture from the blacks. But if this is true, why are African motifs missing in Oriental philosophies and art?

«I. Black liberal theology authors claim that the Egyptian word Kemet means 'the land of the Blacks.' In reality, the word actually means 'the black land' referring to the dark soil along the flood plain of the Nile. It is used in Egyptian literature in opposition to the word Deshret which literally means 'the red land,' a reference to the color of the dirt or sand in the desert.

«VIII. Black Liberal Theology Contradicts The Bible

«In order to make everyone in the Bible black, Black liberal theology takes passages out of context, ignores the grammar of Hebrew and Greek, and then attacks anyone who disagrees with them as 'racist' or 'white.' But Black liberal theology violates several clear Scriptures.

«1. Acts 17:26 «He made from one all the nations of mankind to live on all the face of the earth.»

«The Bible teaches that there is only one race — the human race — regardless of size, shape or color. Thus there is no «black» or 'white' blood. There is only human blood which can be transfused from one man to the next regardless of color or race. Black liberal theology con-tradicts this by talking about «black blood.»

«2. Rom. 2:11 «There is no partiality with God.»

«God does not treat people any differently because they are red, yellow, black or white. They are all precious in His sight. But Black liberal theology claims that God is partial to blacks! This is just as wrong as the Nazis who claimed the same thing for the Ayrian race or the KKK who claims the same for the white race.

«3. Gal. 3:28 «There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.»

«Black liberal theology divides the Church into different economic classes and pits them against each other. Thus they try to put asunder what God has joined together. The Body of Christ is one.

«4. Eph. 4:4-5:2 «Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. And be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving each other, just as God in Christ also has forgiven you. Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children; and walk in love, just as Christ also loved you, and gave Himself up for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God as a fragrant aroma.»

Black liberal theology preaches bitterness, wrath, anger, clamor, slander and that blacks should seek revenge instead of taking the path of forgiveness.

«5. 1 Sam 16:7 «But the LORD said to Samuel, «Do not look at his appearance or at the height of his stature, because I have rejected him; for God sees not as man sees, for man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart.»

«Black liberal theology looks only at the outward appearance. This is wrong. We must judge people not by their color but by their moral character or lack of it.

Conclusion :

«Black liberal theology is not of God but of the devil. The only answer to liberal theology, regardless of the color of those who teach it, is personal salvation through the Lord Jesus Christ. Once you have experienced the love of God in Christ, you do not have any room in you heart for the self-hate and racist rage upon which Black liberal theology feeds. The black community needs a revival — not a revolution; Jesus — not Marx; Christianity — not liberalism. Jesus is the only One who can change the hearts of all men and set them free from their bondage to sin.»

May God add blessings to His Word: «Therefore if any man is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things are passed away; behold, new things have come.» (2 Corinthians 5:17).

«A person with a history of Islamism and militancy in his family who was running for his party's nomination for President might think that being closely allied with a militant pastor (Trinity United Church of Christ's Reverend Jeremiah Wright) was a tad risky. The fallout from that blowing up in his face had barely cleared when on June 23, 2007, he decided to attack the 'Religious Right' » for 'hijacking faith.'

Posted by who cares | May 8, 2008 3:57 AM

who cares/vote for mccain - I have a question I'd like to pose to you. What is your favorite way for Iraqi children to die?

http://www.oilwars.com/deadiraq.jpg

That looks pretty good, right? Now you can go masturbate to the corpses of dead Iraqi babies. I assume that's the only pleasure truly evil "human beings" like you can have.

Posted by Jonesy | May 8, 2008 4:13 AM

How many times do these Clinton morons have to be told that even if you seat Florida and Michigan, the overall picture DOES NOT CHANGE - Obama STILL LEADS!

These morons think everybody in Floria and Michigan voted Clinton? Are they complete imbeciles?

Look at the popular vote totals here:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html

Regardless of Florida and Michigan, Obama leads.

Pledged delegates? Wikipedia says this:

"If the Florida results were to stand, Clinton would receive a net delegate gain of 38 pledged delegates. If the Michigan results were to stand and the “uncommitted” delegates awarded to Obama, Clinton would receive a net delegate gain of 18 pledged delegates."

These totals WILL NOT wipe out Obama's pledged delegate lead! Obama has a lead of 166 delegates! Clinton can only gain a maximum of 56 from Florida and Michigan! Can you say, "Not enough, morons!"? I knew you could!

Superdelegates? Clinton only has 11 more than Obama! Obama picked up three today! Who says any aignificant number of them will break for Clinton over Obama? WHY?

Clinton supporters need to leave the crack pipe at home!

Don Williams has it right: "Hillary will play ball with the Republican patrons. She will be a Republican in Democrat's clothing."

Clinton - and her supporters - want Obama to lose and McCain to become President so that either Clinton gets the nomination or she gets a shot in 2012. It's pathetic.

WHY? Because this scumbag who uses these sorts of tactics is BETTER than Obama? HOW?

Clinton supporters are like celebrity fans. They don't care if their idol is a drug addict, a moron, a drunk, incompetent at their profession or whatever. All they care about is their fan obsession. Clinton supporters ignore every nasty, negative, lying, corrupt thing the Clintons have done both before and during this election season. They just don't care. No matter what happens to the Democratic Party or the country, their idol has to win, no matter how dirty the tactics used, no matter how much damage this results to everybody but the Clintons and them.

They're scum. It's that simple. Nazi Republican scum.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 8, 2008 4:50 AM

Reviewing this thread, it seems clear that a small minority of Clinton fans are just feeling surly. I doubt the majority of them will bolt the party, but the vocal splinter group always yells louder. Sound and fury, frankly, but it takes time to grieve. Let them grieve, don't throw gasoline on the fire, and let's see what November brings.

Posted by catherine | May 8, 2008 6:31 AM

Obama is hellbound and determined to be seen as an illegitimate nominee that won by silencing the voices of millions. Not only does he risk the party's chances by refusing to re-vote FL and MI he also gives the GOP more fodder to use against him in the fall. Obama has a history of disenfranchising voters starting with his very first political race when stripped the ballot to eliminate the competition -- fellow democrats, one a woman who'd earned it and helped him (sounds familiar). Pretending that his decision to remove his name from MI was anything more than tactical goes against all reason and the ads that Conyers ran on his behalf urging folks to vote uncommitted. Obama wins by suppressing votes. If he were truly an inspirational leader, he'd be for democracy rather than winning at all costs. Time and again he's proven, he'll do anything to win and a man like that currently resides in the White House on the backs of disenfranchised voters.

Obama is W.

Posted by jb | May 8, 2008 7:29 AM

[Petey's] a pretty constant figure on this blog

indeed he is. and he's one of the reasons i tend to avoid the comments here.

Posted by cleek | May 8, 2008 7:58 AM

he "old coalition" Democrats - those of us working class, women, poor or uneducated, rural, white, Latino, Asian, gay/lesbian, what used to be the core of the party.

Hm. I detect something missing here. Are young voters and blacks not "real" members of the "old coalition" of the Democrats?

Elections are not determined by who wins a majority of one demographic or another. Elections are determined by who gets more votes, total. Obama has always attracted many women, latinos, asians, white working class, and gay/lesbian voters. Just not necessarily a majority when competing with Hillary. He was able to make up those deficits through other voters, who count just as much as the people who voted for Hillary. Yes, I confess, Obama engaged in a white-ranging, nefarious conspiracy to bring down Hillary by getting more people to vote for him than for her, but them's the breaks. It's not "unfair" to get more voters to vote for you than the other guy, even if you don't approve of those voters.

Posted by Tyro | May 8, 2008 8:03 AM

2209 is the Delegate Number, Not 2025
By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008

You'll be hearing this a lot in coming days. The true delegate number and the one Barack Obama must surpass is 2209, not 2025. Litigator Mom over at The Confluence explains, beginning with the correct calculation:

50% + 1 of all the delegates, pledged and SDs, alloted to the 50 states, Guam and Puerto Rico.

Posted by nobama | May 8, 2008 8:05 AM

Reading this thread, I learned that the establishment candidate with campaign staff at the DNC was horribly wronged by the DNC's enforcement of its own rules. I've also learned that rules don't need to be enforced. Prior notice of the rules doesn't matter, nor does setting the rules ahead of time. What matters is that states which broke the rules should never have to suffer any consequences for it.

I've also learned that a candidate who tries to win over everyone and uses expansive rhetoric is the divisive candidate because-while winning a plurality of the votes, delegates, states, caucuses, and elected officials-the candidate did not win specific demographic subsets. Failure to win those subsets shows the victory is fundamentally illegitimate and disrespectful. It's true the other candidate failed to win even more and larger demographic subsets (hence the failure to win a plurality), but that failure does not reflect any disrespect. The losing candidate's campaign spent the last 3 months spinning and explaining that many states didn't count, many demographic groups are irrelevant, and high involvement by activists and regulars is undesirable. This, of course, is not disrespectful at all.

I also learned that there are three crucial swing states-OH, PA, FL. All other swing states are not important.

Mostly I learned that, when a primary is close, the winner necessarily stole the election. It doesn't matter that the loser had numerous built in advantages-what matters is that the winner won through cheating. This cheating may appear to be inspiring more people to volunteer, donate, and vote. It might be following the rules established by the party apparatus ahead of time. It might be managing to get positive media for about 2 months, followed by very bad press for about 2 months. All of which is cheating.

Posted by MDtoMN | May 8, 2008 8:07 AM

I don't see how MI and FL are relevant to Clinton's candidacy, since she pledged, in writing, not to participate in those contests. I mean, she wouldn't just break her pledge, would she? So if she didn't break her pledge and didn't participate in the MI and FL primaries, then that is the end of the issue as far as Clinton's candidacy is concerned.

Incidentally, I agree with catherine. Generally, it is of course a mistake to confuse people posting on the Internet with their real world analogs, so I wouldn't assume the real world Clinton supporters are being fairly represented by Clinton's self-appointed Internet warriors.

Posted by DTM | May 8, 2008 8:20 AM

Do you want to know why millions of Hillary supporters will not vote Obama in November, read this,

Barack Obama is an incompetent, unskilled, moron who has accomplished less than nothing, has no concept of basic economic principles, no foreign policy experience, and is wholly and totally unqualified to be President. No wonder the media loves him.

Posted by nobama | May 8, 2008 8:21 AM

For over three decades, America’s Intellectuals and Pundits have remained silent on the relationship between mathematical literacy and citizenship. Who cares and what’s the connection?

Well, when it comes time to counting delegates, and votes, you can’t remain Democratic, and Mathematically Challenged, at the same time. Maybe in a Fake Democracy like Iran or Liberia, but not in one where ballots are actually counted.

If anyone still believes that Obama isn’t really such a serious threat to America after all, just take a good look at what Ethnomathematics means for Participative Democracy:

2,500,000 Votes which Don’t Count, and a 20 delegate which magically “equal” election Victory!

Never mind the 533 remaining delegates up for grabs, Obama has 20, eight plus a dozen, a two and a zero, over Clinton! Using Voodoo from Ethnomathematics, 20 means he’s won the Democratic Nomination! Hurray, everyone in Voodoo Land.

Obama has won… yup…that’s why he’s still 210 delegates short of 2209, and Clinton is 230 short, with the next 60-70% of delegates (not independent delegates) likely to go for Clinton. Oh sure, Obama has already won - you saw it on CNN, read it on the Internet.

Since Mr. Who? has won the Election, he naturally needs a new round of Psychological Warfare to prove it. I mean its all grassroots right: outspending Clinton 5-1, and leveraging the country’s three biggest media corporations lobbying 24/7 on his behalf?

And how much more grassroots can you get, than those convenient Caucuses where you can get your Code Pinks, MoveOns and worked up Black activists, to intimidate Clinton supporters from showing up?

The only place Mr.Who? has won, is in Lala-Ethnomathematics Land. What happens in America’s Racist Democratic System underpinned by our Racist White Mathematics, doesn’t look so pretty for him.

***

The flip side of all this Obama ignorance, is Clinton’s Victory by the end of June. Since Obama doesn’t know what he is talking about when doing his delegate math, the pro-Obama media are stuck Strutting his Ignorance as Holy Truth and unquestionable Common Sense.

Little do they know, what is in store for them. They would be wise to do their math, and affirm their commitment to Democracy, if they don’t want to look like sobbing cows by the time the Puerto Rico bell tolls. A little washing with cold-water, can still save their face.

Short of a Clinton withdrawal from the Race, the mathematical chance of an Obama Victory, is Zer0. The race will be decided by independent delegates, and Clinton supporters are advised to not get taken in, by the latest wave of Psychological Warfare aimed at our morale. Axelrod knows your weak spot, and he will abuse it at every turn he can. Sit tight, and March on, Obama cannot win,

but Hillary,

She Can.

Unless of course, you give in to the Media Hype.
——————————–

Posted by nobama | May 8, 2008 8:37 AM

Yglesias refuses all questions about his part in enabling the hundreds of thousands of deaths that have come about during the Iraq war due to his inveterate war hawking in 2002 and 2003.

How amusing to see Petey, for the first time in living memory, actually bring up the Iraq War unprompted. And to see him do so by denouncing Matt's support for a war which BOTH of Petey's recent preferred candidates also supported! And which Petey was once happy to see Democrats support if it helped the party win elections! And which Petey's non-preferred candidate opposed! It's almost enough to make you think Petey has incoherent views on the subject.

Oh, and for the record, yes, Matt's post makes no great sense either. I see no particular obligation on Clinton's part to drop out just because she's trailing. The ultimate outcome has more legitimacy the more voters take part in fairly determining it. ("Fairly", however, does NOT include MI and Fl voters because there was nothing fair about their participation -- Clinton had name recognition and Obama didn't campaign, or even put himself on the ballot in MI. Revotes would have been best, but the DNC's proposed revote rules would have unfairly and disproportionately disadvantaged Obama voters. And superdelegates overruling a majority or plurality of elected delegates would also rob the outcome of democratic legitimacy. Clinton needs to try to win this off pledged delegates in the remaining primaries or not at all.)

Posted by Ryan | May 8, 2008 8:38 AM

Hillary has more foreign policy experience than Obama? How?

Posted by El Cid | May 8, 2008 8:48 AM

Now...a little bit about this "math" that all the so-called pundits and Obama people are gloating about. You want to talk math? Okay, let's talk THIS math:

143 days total in US Senate
120 "present" votes
0 major accomplishments
2 states disenfranchised (i.e., 2 million voters dissed)
50% Democrats who refuse to vote for Obama in November
3 foreign countries visited in entire lifetime
20 years at the feet of Rev. Wright
plus a couple of terrorist pals and how many millions spent but STILL no closed deal?

Posted by nobama | May 8, 2008 8:48 AM

So, Hillary's superior foreign policy experience is that she's visited more countries?

I've visited very few foreign countries. Held no public office. Never desired it. Yet my foreign policies would be thousands and thousands of times better than Doofus W. Bush Jr., despite our in many ways similar travel records.

Next weird pseudo-argument please?

Posted by El Cid | May 8, 2008 8:56 AM

Holy crap, there's actually someone more annoying than Petey.

Posted by daveNYC | May 8, 2008 9:09 AM

Holy crap, there's actually someone more annoying than Petey.

In this thread, there's more than one.

Posted by Ryan | May 8, 2008 9:11 AM

It seems (almost) inevitable that Obama will be the Democratic candidate for President. So Clinton supporters have a choice - support him or vote McCain/sit at home. He has already reached out to you and it is his words (not his blog enthusiasts) that should matter. Better still compare Obama and Hillary's policy proposals - you might be pleasantly surprised. So please make your choice and stop writing irrelevant screeds on how you were insulted/ disrespected/ ignored, or how Obama is a terrorist. If you are so perplexed by slights (whether real or imagined) by anonymous commentators on blogs read by maybe 0.1% of the population, you clearly need to reflect on your priorities.

Posted by 2cynicalbyhalf | May 8, 2008 9:14 AM

Opinion question:

Do people really think that the whole "he who must not be named lest it trigger RSS alerts and who used to back Edwds until backing Clntn" was about an InTrade thing?

I used to think that was just a rhetorical game, but now, I'm starting to think it really was.

Posted by El Cid | May 8, 2008 9:19 AM

Suppose that Michigan and Florida are seated. But not as is. First, use the invalid primaries and multiply both states' delegations by two. Then, remove all of Obama's delegates. Suddenly Clinton's pledged delegate count would look better. She owes it to herself to stay in just in case, right? You never know what could happen with the delegate count.

Posted by Deborah | May 8, 2008 9:23 AM

Hillary is staying in the race to pay off her $11M personal loans to the campaign. By law she can only recover about $250K if she shuts it down. She'll keep the window open until the convention albeit as a suspended campaign. It's all about the money.

Posted by wren | May 8, 2008 9:27 AM

Wily guy, that Obama. Getting all those people to vote for him. It's almost as if we were living in a democracy. Now that's what I call cunning.

Posted by ianj | May 8, 2008 11:00 AM

This Petey thing is weird -- ironically it most resembles liberals (generally NYC liberals) after 9/11 who became aggro supports of GWBush.

I don't see this at all. Maybe you can explain? Petey is just a troll whose predictions never fail to be wrong.

Obama should pick a hawkish VP candidate, b/c that's all McCain has going for him. I did like what Obama said in his Tuesday night victory speech about talking to our enemies, like what Roosevelt and Kennedy did.

Posted by Peter K. | May 8, 2008 11:01 AM

Do people really think that the whole "he who must not be named lest it trigger RSS alerts and who used to back Edwds until backing Clntn" was about an InTrade thing?

It would explain the 'trust fund' insults.

Posted by Doug H. (Fausto no more) | May 8, 2008 11:06 AM

Well, of course, the Obama campaign could agree to some kind of compromise solution to MI & FL, just as they could've agreed to the DNC sanctioned MI & FL re-votes, but didn't.

You gotta love Petey, he never fails to lie and mislead.

Set aside the re-vote issue, where Petey misleads rather than lies (the reality is far more complex, as other commenters have stated).

But regarding a compromise, it's abundantly clear from all reports that, right now, Obama wants a compromise, and Hillary opposes one. (And Petey surely knows this.) Now, I say that in an entirely non-evaluative way. Hillary, assuming she still wants a to win, has no reason to support a compromise, while a compromise benefits Obama; a compromise would resolve a festering issue that has to be dealt with at some point, the sooner the better from Obama's perspective (no one with any sense wants a convention with FL and MI excluded entirely).

Ironically, the only way that Michigan and Florida might not be seated will be if there is no resolution of the issue pre-convention. If it comes down to a credentials fight, complete exclusion is possible.

But really all of this is probably academic. The media narrative, and the emerging consensus among the Democratic political leadership, is now such that the only issue is how and when this gets wound up. My guess is that Hillary will give in to that reality, and will bow out after the 5/20 primaries.

Posted by LarryM | May 8, 2008 11:26 AM

How much money could one possibly put into Intrade? I cannot imagine chucking in more than a couple of hundred. Maybe $1k if I had a lot to spare... if it worked out, I had some extra money for going out to dinner. If it didn't, chalk it up to entertainment expenses. But so much that I'd be upset financially if my judgments were wrong? That's crazytalk.

Posted by Tyro | May 8, 2008 11:29 AM

Obama should pick a hawkish VP candidate, b/c that's all McCain has going for him.

I wouldn't say "hawkish" so much as 'national-security-credentialed'. That's Jim Webb, Wes Clark, Bill Richardson or maybe Joe Biden. I'd vote for Clark out of these options. We want Webb and Biden in the Senate. Richardson's got some iffy baggage. Clark not only has the requisite credentials, he's also not currently holding another elective office AND he might function as a bridge to the Clinton wing of the party.

Posted by Ryan | May 8, 2008 11:42 AM

I suppose it depends on whether or not P*t*y has a trust fund to raid.

Holy crap, there's actually someone more annoying than Petey.

In this thread, there's more than one.

Actually, I think there's only one, using multiple nicks and apparently copypasta'ing hir doctoral thesis, "Why Obama is a Poopyhead."

Posted by Persia | May 8, 2008 11:50 AM

I like Webb too, but he has some baggage of his own, including some with regard to women. He would be about the last choice to conciliate Hillary's woman supporters.

Though he would be a good choice to conciliate her working class supporters, and in all likelihood they are going to need more conciliating (in the sense that they are more at risk to vote for McCain).

Clarke, of course, helps in terms of national security cred but not working class voters. Really there isn't a perfect pick.

Posted by LarryM | May 8, 2008 11:56 AM

Hey, EWard? Next time you consider coming here after gathering a posse of HillBots, consider going somewhere else.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | May 8, 2008 12:08 PM

At least RKU's anti-Obama arguments have some coherence to them. The wackjobs from Edward's place are just sad and don't realize they are simply not very bright. Guess what Clinton supporters, she's thinks you're stupid. If she thinks you'll fall for her having 35 years of experience and that she cares about MI and FL after signing her pledge, hiring Ickes and relying on DNC superdelegate support for her early lead, you are simply naive. You are being used. How does it feel knowing that your choice thinks you're retarded?

"Obama has secretly courted superdelegates while losing the big-swing states of CA, MI, FL, OH, TX, and PA."

Wait, CA and TX are swing states now? Where do you buy your crack? I guess that it doesn't matter that Obama won swing states like Virginia and across the Upper Midwest.

Posted by Reality Man | May 8, 2008 12:36 PM

Words of advice from Atrios that nobama might want to listen to:

"It's important to remember that none of us are above the fray, that we all have hackish tendencies to suppress information which doesn't fit our worldview and privilege information that does. We're more likely to excuse behavior from people we like and exaggerate the ills of people we don't like. I try to fight hackish tendencies especially during this intra-Dem battle, but I don't claim to have superhuman Nonhack powers."

Try fighting it a bit more nobama.

Posted by Rihilism | May 8, 2008 12:48 PM

Words of advice from Atrios that nobama might want to listen to:

"It's important to remember that none of us are above the fray, that we all have hackish tendencies to suppress information which doesn't fit our worldview and privilege information that does. We're more likely to excuse behavior from people we like and exaggerate the ills of people we don't like. I try to fight hackish tendencies especially during this intra-Dem battle, but I don't claim to have superhuman Nonhack powers."

Try fighting it a bit more nobama.

Posted by Rihilism | May 8, 2008 12:58 PM

Reality Man

We are bright enough to be working for the most qualified candidate.

Nobama

Well said!

LaFollette Progresssive had it right. He described the MSM functioning as a high school cafeteria clique.

Posted by EWard | May 8, 2008 3:03 PM

If she did that, the only remaining issue would be to strike a balance between representing FL and MI at the convention and slapping FL and MI on the wrist hard enough that states don't pull this kind of stunt again. That's a needle you can thread any number of ways.

I suggest the following balance-striking "needle":

* Seat the pledged delegates from MI and FL - FL as is and MI as suggested by their compromise proposal.

* Make the superdelegates from MI and FL stay home - they don't count.

Why this solution? One, it blunts any claims by Clinton supporters that the voters who faithfully took part in their state primary are not being counted. Two, it punishes the state party machines from Fl and MI that tried (and is still trying) to subvert the process set by the DNC.

I keep reading all of these crazy compromises that try to split the pledged delegates a million different ways, but none of them ever mention excluding the state party big wigs (i.e. superdelegates) that actually defied the DNC rules (knowing full well the penalty to their state). I think my solution strikes the right balance: don't punish the voters, but punish the state harshly enough to discourage further disobedience.

Hopefully another tangential benefit to the solution would be to end the Clinton camp's cynical championing of the MI/FL delegate issue by resolving it and blunting its use as an excuse for Hillary to hang on all through the summer to Denver.

Posted by Andy | May 8, 2008 3:51 PM

cleek: "indeed he is. and he's one of the reasons i tend to avoid the comments here."

How about a MattY version of your Pie Script?

Posted by Kevin | May 8, 2008 4:44 PM

Matt, I think you're misreading what Ickes was saying. You seem to be reading it that he's saying she should stay in until MI/FL is resolved because her staying in will somehow help to resolve the issue. I took what he said to mean that she should not drop out until the MI/FL question is resolved because the manner of resolution could potentially put her in a position to win.

I don't think he's using circular logic, I think he's just seeing FL/MI as her last shot to stay in the race.

Posted by Royko | May 8, 2008 6:07 PM

Clinton supporters = scum.

Need I repeat?

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 8, 2008 6:36 PM

Reality Man

Obama takes his supporters for granted. For now, he is operating on cruise control, and working in Washington to consolidate his support among his Democratic cronies. The irony is that many of them are more qualified than Obama to be President.

How can anyone be President, if they are too lazy to campaign in WV, KY, OR, SD, and Puerto Rico? The Republicans like your candidate because he will be an easy target to beat in November.

Posted by EWard | May 8, 2008 8:02 PM