"She Could Go All The Way" (Annotated)

by juliewolf, Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:43:56 AM EST

Sometimes, when I read diaries, I feel like they need an annotated version.  So, for what it's worth, I've decided to mark up this diary a little bit.

As most of you know by now, Hillary's spending some time talking to those disenfranchised voters down in south Florida...

...which her campaign helped disenfranchise.

...her presence has got to be reassuring to the millions of folks who are - at this moment - unsure about whether their votes will be counted fully when we meet in Denver to choose our party's nominee....

...especially those millions of voters who didn't vote because they were told that their votes wouldn't count, as endorsed by the Clinton campaign.

She's the only one fighting to make sure their voices are heard...

...as long as they voted for her.

and she's making it clear as day that she'll continue that fight as this process plays out...

...or at least as long as it's politically advantageous for her to do so.

Now onto a quote from Clinton herself (from the same diary)

We carry on this cause for a simple reason, because we believe the outcome of our elections should be determined by the will of the people - nothing more, nothing less...

...as long as "the will of the people" is politically on my side.  But if it's close enough that we can get away with it, it's just fine for superdelegates to override the will of the people

Back to the Diary:

because if you don't do right by my family back home in Michigan, and seat ALL of the delegates from MI (my home state) & FL, then you have nobody but yourselves to blame if this thing goes all the way to Denver.

You hear that?  It's your fault that Clinton supported the rules that she now opposes.  It's your fault that a committee with a near-majority of Clinton operatives stripped those delegates and its your fault that this is happening.  You have no one to blame... but yourselves!

And, finally:

Right then... you know what to do...

Please send money.  Mark Penn is hungry and we need to fundraise to cover his salary for Thursday.  If you don't send money, the Clintons will be forced to part with a small portion of their vast fortunes.  And you wouldn't want that on your conscience.  




Tags: Clinton, 2008, president (all tags)

Display:
Permalink :: 205 Comments :: Post a Comment


Aw... (2.00 / 6)

This is so mean.  

It's almost as if the contest isn't over and you're still trying to... prove something?


2004 swing state margins: PA-2%, OH-2%, IA-1%, WI-0.5%, MI-3%, FL-5%, NM-1%; Alienating 50% of the party is a luxury we can't afford.
by BPK80 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:51:09 AM EST

Re: Aw... (1.82 / 34)

While reading the original diary for which this one offers annotations, I thought my jaw would literally detach from my skull, so hard and often was it dropping floorward in utter amazement.

This is not mean. This is a responsible rebuttal of a series of basic lies and distortions that are affecting public perception and must be corrected.


Not this time.
by jedley on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:00:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Aw... (2.00 / 7)

Wow.  I had no idea you guys felt so disturbed by Hillary's main public arguments.

I guess it shouldn't surprise me though that themes like counting all the votes would resonate so deeply with a Democrat.  Republicans wouldn't give a damn.  


2004 swing state margins: PA-2%, OH-2%, IA-1%, WI-0.5%, MI-3%, FL-5%, NM-1%; Alienating 50% of the party is a luxury we can't afford.
by BPK80 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:03:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Aw... (1.76 / 30)

aren't you even the least little bit ashamed at the intellectual dishonesty of demanding that the "votes" in Michigan "be counted"?  Or did the shame gene skip a generation?

Look--if we want to do what the Republicans did and split MI and FL's delegations in half by given each delegate a half vote, and give all the uncommitteds in MI to Barack, I'm fine.  That's a fair solution.

But what you're talking about is nuts.


It's all about McCain/Bush now...
by thereisnospoon on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:13:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Aw... (2.00 / 6)

One person = one vote, but in Michigan & Florida, you'd give each person half a vote?

"if we want to do what the Republicans did"

No.  We're Democrats.  We don't do what the Republicans did and they are not our role models in delegation resolution issues.  We're better than that.


2004 swing state margins: PA-2%, OH-2%, IA-1%, WI-0.5%, MI-3%, FL-5%, NM-1%; Alienating 50% of the party is a luxury we can't afford.
by BPK80 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:35:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

So we let them (2.00 / 14)

turn this into a free for all? Hell, let's let Michigan move their 2012 primary to tomorrow then.

There's got to be some punishment when this gets out of control. You don't like it, take it up with your state leaders.


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:49:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So we let them (2.00 / 6)

No, we have four years to fix the calendar and to contemplate better more effective sanctions for legislators who move the dates.

Right now, our immediate concern is the 2008 election.  We don't have the luxury of holding onto principles that damage our chances in the fall.  

In 2012, an entirely new primary system is in order.  This one has been a disaster.  


2004 swing state margins: PA-2%, OH-2%, IA-1%, WI-0.5%, MI-3%, FL-5%, NM-1%; Alienating 50% of the party is a luxury we can't afford.
by BPK80 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:59:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

We TRIED to fix the calendar (2.00 / 21)

and Florida and Michigan said "fuck you, we're going to do what we want!"

If New York moved it's primary like that, and they stripped MY delegates, I'd blame my party leaders not the candidates. I wouldn't expect my vote to count.


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:03:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

eggs ackley, nrafter (none / 0)


Not this time.
by jedley on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:49:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

precisely (2.00 / 1)

it's a shame that in all of this high-mindedness about counting votes, people forget what took place. it's much easier for them to blame obama and praise clinton.


by j cantarella on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:05:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: precisely (2.00 / 4)

Let's not forget Hillary's original position on the MI vote either:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yJn4VtgJ 5A&eurl=http://www.dailykos.com/stor yonly/2008/5/22/0226/35614/632/520082

"Everyone knows this vote won't count" -Hillary Clinton speaking on the Michigan primary vote.

Now these people are disenfranchised!  Bollocks.


by cato on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:23:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: precisely (2.00 / 1)

Can anyone point me to a single response to this original statement by Clinton by any of her supporters here pushing this metric?  I'm honestly asking.  This is called being caught in true duplicitiness, and yet I can't see anyone on the other side responding.


by Particle Noun on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:35:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: precisely (1.00 / 1)

Regardless of whether FL favors Clinton or if her arguments at this time seem disingenuous, we Democrats cannot afford to go into November with FL pissed off at us.

Sorry, time for Obama to eat one for the party. Count FL as they voted since all candidates had the same shot there and split MI since they didn't.


by SophieL on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:46:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: We TRIED to fix the calendar (none / 0)

But you are OK with NV and SC doing the same and not being stripped?


by zerosumgame on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:34:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

they did some good bargaining. (none / 0)

Richardson for Nevada
Edwards for SC
Obama for Iowa
Hillary for NH.

Still don't see the pattern?


*&=4eva
by BlogSurrogate57 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:31:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: We TRIED to fix the calendar (2.00 / 1)

Good for you.  I'm fairly confident you'd be an atypical voter then.  If you live in a heavily Dem. district, it's very possible your legislator would have opposed the hypothetical primary change.  The Goopers in the GOP legislators' districts probably wouldn't be too displeased with them after they successfully robbed NY Democrats of their voices.  Who would you blame then?


2004 swing state margins: PA-2%, OH-2%, IA-1%, WI-0.5%, MI-3%, FL-5%, NM-1%; Alienating 50% of the party is a luxury we can't afford.
by BPK80 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:00:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So we let them (2.00 / 8)

How will those changes or fixes be made if the DNC has no ability to enforce their rules?


by its simple IF you ignore the complexity on Thu May 22, 2008 at 08:49:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So we let them (2.00 / 1)

The rules allow for a revote or a meeting of the rules committee (which is scheduled for 5/31), to try and get the delegates seated.
And I really have no problem with enforcing the rules, if they had been applied fairly to all the states who moved their primaries.
by skohayes on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:26:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So we let them (2.00 / 4)

"We don't have the luxury of holding on to our principles"

Has it occurred to you that the biggest tragedy of this century for our country has been the abandonment of the principle of rule of law, including Constitutional protections and habeus corpus? Where freedoms have been traded for expediency?

I'm afraid your perspective been co-opted by those who are stepping on our necks to seize power.  Unless you clean up this part of your thinking, you'll be powerless to oppose them.


by reenactor on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:21:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So we let them (none / 0)

I was referring to the principles of having Iowa and New Hampshire commence the primary process.  Forgive my ambiguity; I could have stated that more clearly.  


2004 swing state margins: PA-2%, OH-2%, IA-1%, WI-0.5%, MI-3%, FL-5%, NM-1%; Alienating 50% of the party is a luxury we can't afford.
by BPK80 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:05:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So we let them (none / 0)

Yeah, okay. That might have been important to note since most this discussion was about FL and MI.

However, my point still holds.  Changing the rules now is nothing less than a symptom of how far we've slid as a society.


by reenactor on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:03:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

One thing I've learned from this (2.00 / 2)

2008 Democratic primary is that when the "process" benefits your guy or girl, it is sacrosanct, beyond reproach. This goes for the supporters of Obama and Hillary. Reverse the candidate's predicaments, and all the supporters with their arguments and biases would dutifully follow suit. It really pains me to see the howls of purity from supporters on both sides: "Follow the rules!" "Count the votes!" "Follow the rules!" "Count the votes!"

However, there is always a middle way. There are always options. Why doesn't Obama demonstrate some unexpected, courageous leadership and ask that MI and FL be seated as is, with an agreed to percentage of uncommitted going to himself. If he still has the most pledged delegates at that point, which he would, and is sure to be the nominee, as all the Obama supporters here keep telling us over and over ad nauseum, then why doesn't he defuse the situation and ask that they be seated. He would be seen as a hero, MI and FL would be back in play having a say at the convention, and Hillary will have won a moral victory, i.e., having all the votes count. It seems reasonable to me.

Or conversely, why doesn't Hillary show the same courageous spirit and drop her demands that MI and FL be seated as is and go with the 50/50 split scenario. She would be seen as a problem solver, which she claims to be, and could still go to the convention with her argument intact, bore out by the polls, that she is more electable in the important swing states. Conceding to a compromise could only enhance her position.

This freakin' intransigence coming from both sides is not doing any of us any favors. The only possible reason I can see for Hillary remaining unshakable at this point is that sometimes the mere threat of a thing (a brokered convention) can be just as effective as the thing itself. And Obama's insistence on sticking to the process, no matter what, just tells me he is more than a bit wary that he really isn't the winner, yet. I only wish that one of them would get creative and show some unexpected bold leadership. It would pay off tremendously for that person...


Obama supporter working to defeat McCain.
by Rumarhazzit on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:50:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: One person, one vote (none / 0)

So then why do the people of Guam, Puerto Rico, and other U.S. territories only get half a vote?

You are correct that Democrats are not like Republicans.  That's why we stripped FL and MI of their entire delegation and rightly so.  The GOP primaries showed that even with a 50% penalty, scofflaw FL and MI still had more influence than PA, NC, IN, and many other jurisdictions that complied with their party rules?


by Brad G on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:03:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

that's their winner take all rules (none / 0)

... and winner take all SUCKS. Irrational decisions made RANDOMLY are just DUMB.


*&=4eva
by BlogSurrogate57 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:34:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Aw... (2.00 / 2)

Will you please address directly the issue of all the voters who did not vote because they were told the election would not count.  Are they disenfranchised or not?


by interestedbystander on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:09:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Aw... (2.00 / 1)

well that is the danger of listening to pundits and other lower life-forms. just like Limpball Op Chaos and Markos calling for dems in MI to vote repuke to try to take down McSame. The election was held, all registered votes were counted and those who choose not to vote...well that IS what they choose. You on the other hand for partisan reasons alone want to make sure they none are counted.


by zerosumgame on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:37:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Aw... (2.00 / 5)

like Hillary saying everyone knows the votes don't count?


It's all about McCain/Bush now...
by thereisnospoon on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:12:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Aw... (1.00 / 1)

Other lower life forms like Hillary and her camapaign team I guess.


by interestedbystander on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:39:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Aw... (none / 0)

Kysen are you going to TR ZSG's comments above that this is a reference to?


by interestedbystander on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:28:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Aw... (none / 0)

They were not disenfranchised.  They could have voted.  Millions of people clearly did.  It appears that people who heard an astounding and confusing message that their votes might not count didn't believe the party was really capable of doing something so draconian and voted regardless.    

There may have been some voter confusion that kept a few people home.  It's not clear who they would have supported or how many there were or why they didn't vote.  But this is common in many elections, particularly in caucus states where the information and time-commitment barriers appear to exclude over 95% of registered Democrats in many states (like Maine).  Still, we accept these certified results as reported, just as we do for Florida and Michigan.  No one said every election would be perfect.    


2004 swing state margins: PA-2%, OH-2%, IA-1%, WI-0.5%, MI-3%, FL-5%, NM-1%; Alienating 50% of the party is a luxury we can't afford.
by BPK80 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:12:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Aw... (2.00 / 1)

"They were not disenfranchised."

Yes they were. "Deceived into not voting" isn't any better than "forced into not voting".

Also an election where no campaigning is allowed is invalid PERIOD.

"No one said every election would be perfect."

No, we only say a few other things:

  • A valid election need be one where the candidates are allowed to campaign.
  • A valid election's winner need be one which actually includes at least one candidate that argued it was valid.


by Aris Katsaris on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:41:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Aw... (none / 0)

Again, if we're going to impugn our states' elections, this augmented level of scrutiny needs to apply evenhandedly.  If we exclude Michigan, it follows that we must exclude all caucus states that flout the same Democratic principles you accuse Michigan of having betrayed.  You strike me as an intelligent voice here and I am confident you can see that excluding some cherrypicked elections on grounds of "unfairness" while including other elections that were arguably even more unfair is inconsistent.  


2004 swing state margins: PA-2%, OH-2%, IA-1%, WI-0.5%, MI-3%, FL-5%, NM-1%; Alienating 50% of the party is a luxury we can't afford.
by BPK80 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:05:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Aw... (none / 0)

I don't see the caucus states violating any such democratic principle. Everyone was allowed to attend, everyone was allowed to campaign, everyone knew the rules beforehand, everyone knew how the delegates would be split based on the results.

Nor do I believe you give a damn about democratic principles, honestly, any more than Clinton does. So how long are you gonna keep the pretense that people who want Obama be given 0 votes in Michigan care at all about the "will of the electorate"?


by Aris Katsaris on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:09:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Aw... (none / 0)

"If we want to do what the Republicans did"

And you have a problem with this statement because WE'RE DEMOCRATS???  Did you have a problem when Hillary whined "I'd already BE the nominee if we had Republican rules!!"?


John McCain wants to stay in Iraq.
by ihaveseenenough on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:11:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Aw... (none / 0)

Actually, stripping half the delegates is also the penalty for an early primary in the Democratic rules.
Howard Dean and the DNC had lost control as states juggled for the first primary date and they thought stripping all the delegates form MI and FL (while ignoring New Hampshire's rule violation) would give them the control back. Of course, they were wrong, and now we have this mess on our hands.

by skohayes on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:31:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Oh, they got their control backl (none / 0)

and KEPT it by not giving/paying for new elections in Michigan and Florida.

Dean has been decidedly neutral. Which hasn't gone at all well with Clinton's case, because it is mostly bluff.


*&=4eva
by BlogSurrogate57 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:36:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh, they got their control backl (none / 0)

They kept their control? LOL, we had primaries that were almost moved into December of 2007 (Iowa) and in direct violation of the rules, after Florida and Michigan were stripped of their delegates.
How is that maintaining control?
by skohayes on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:41:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

the deal that was struck was kept (none / 0)

if yo9u have a problem with the deal, go bitch at edwards.

then go bitch at richardson.


*&=4eva
by BlogSurrogate57 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:01:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Aw... (2.00 / 4)

LOL at Michigan.  Robert Mugabee would be proud of this arguement.


Tony Romo for Secretary of Awesome
by kasjogren on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:38:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Aw... (none / 0)

uprated.

Somebody's got to stop this rating abuse.


We should be able to deliver bottled hot water to dehydrated babies.
by Jess81 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:22:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Aw... (none / 0)

So what about all the "one persons" who didn't show up because they were told their votes wouldn't count?

And even if MI and FL should count for a moral reason, what right does Clinton have to push that argument now after all her backers happily penalized MI and FL to begin with to appease Iowa and NH?


by mattw on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:12:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Aw... (none / 0)

The committee that issued the ruling, which was intended by brute show of force to inspire a revote in both states, was not comprised of anyone acting as an agent of Hillary Clinton.  Being associated with someone does not necessarily mean you share their views or are responsible for them.


2004 swing state margins: PA-2%, OH-2%, IA-1%, WI-0.5%, MI-3%, FL-5%, NM-1%; Alienating 50% of the party is a luxury we can't afford.
by BPK80 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:14:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Aw... (2.00 / 1)

One person = one vote, but in Michigan & Florida, you'd give each person half a vote?

Nope.  Each person would have a full vote.  But those votes would be used to choose only 1/2 as many delegates.

Delegates are the metric by which the nominee is chosen.  It doesn't matter how long or how loud one screams about the "popular vote," because it can't and won't be the determining factor.

But everyone already knows that, don't they?


by Vivianne on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:57:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Aw... (none / 0)

Isn't Hillary winning if our primary was like the Republican primary?

That's your camps talking point.


We want to see Ivana [Trump] because we are so desperate in Alaska for any semblance of glamour and culture. - Sarah Palin
by spacemanspiff on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:26:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Aw... (none / 0)

..unless you listen to what Clinton's campaign manager Terry McAuliffe (when he was DNC head) told Levin in 2004 if he DARED move his primary (which was already in a highly advantageous position) "None of your delegates will see the convention. The closest they will get is to watch it on TV."

Yeah. It IS what Democrats do. It is, in fact, what CLINTON Democrats do. That is, of course, until they are losing.


by rhetoricus on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:02:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Aw... (none / 0)

How does Obama deserve all the uncommitted? There were several other candidates polling well in Michigan at that time.


by rocky on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:20:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Aw... (none / 0)

And maybe some of the people who voted Clinton would have voted for some of the candidates who weren't on the ballot.  That's the problem, especially with Michigan's so-called vote, it's all based on speculation.  Had Michigan chose a legal date they would have played a crucial role in electing the nominee instead state legislators had to get big egos and screw their own voters over.  Obama nor Clinton made the decision for Florida or Michigan to move up their primaries, hence neither should be blamed for holding the positions they do.


A useless "Community Organizer" from Pennsylvania as noted by Republicans, Rudy Giuliani and Sarah Palin
by hootie4170 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:52:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Aw... (1.91 / 12)

Wow.  I had no idea you guys felt so disturbed by Hillary's main public arguments...

...from this week.
I'm only a click away
by juliewolf on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:57:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Aw... (2.00 / 6)

It must be that we Hillary supporters are so eloquent and persuasive.  If we were primitive and stupid, we wouldn't be so much of a threat.  You should be happy to have us in your party.  :-)


2004 swing state margins: PA-2%, OH-2%, IA-1%, WI-0.5%, MI-3%, FL-5%, NM-1%; Alienating 50% of the party is a luxury we can't afford.
by BPK80 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:00:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Aw... (2.00 / 1)

I'm very happy to have you in my party.  And I don't consider Hillary or supporters a threat.

Except that they're a threat to our candidate, since they're soaking up TV time and fundraising.

They're a threat to our victories in MI and FL, because the more Clinton gets on TV whining about how "Obama wants to disenfranchise you", the more embittered she makes that state, even though she and her team took JUST as big of a lead in assigning this penalty.

Except that they threaten to extend the Republican meme that "Democrats are sore losers".

Except that (thankfully, until recently), they went ALL OVER the place extending the theme that a Dem was a "latte-drinking, out of touch, elitist", despite having about $99 million more in the bank than he did.

Come on.


John McCain wants to stay in Iraq.
by ihaveseenenough on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:13:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Aw... (none / 0)

Hillary veered towards the center and arguably the mild right for her perch of rhetoric against Obama in the primary.  No doubt about that.

When she started doing that in March, she got a lot more votes.  Perhaps there's a lesson to be learned here for all of us?


2004 swing state margins: PA-2%, OH-2%, IA-1%, WI-0.5%, MI-3%, FL-5%, NM-1%; Alienating 50% of the party is a luxury we can't afford.
by BPK80 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:16:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Aw... (none / 0)

Yeah- if you want Republican states to vote for you, talk like a Republican?


John McCain wants to stay in Iraq.
by ihaveseenenough on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:46:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Aw... (none / 0)

No, I was thinking the presentation and marketing advantage the GOP has had over us in this past decade is something we could likewise infiltrate.  


2004 swing state margins: PA-2%, OH-2%, IA-1%, WI-0.5%, MI-3%, FL-5%, NM-1%; Alienating 50% of the party is a luxury we can't afford.
by BPK80 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:07:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Aw... (none / 0)

Hey, I thought Obama's "presentation" was hollow, and that pretty speeches didn't help anyone!


John McCain wants to stay in Iraq.
by ihaveseenenough on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:14:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Aw... (2.00 / 1)

With her campaign now actively pushing the idea that no Uncommitted votes in MI should be counted (as reported by Ben Smith at Politico), you can stop even suggesting that Clinton cares about counting all of the votes.

There is nothing left to support that idea.


by Particle Noun on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:33:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Aw... (none / 0)

I guess it shouldn't surprise me though that themes like counting all the votes would resonate so deeply with a Democrat.

Unless, of course, those votes took place in the form of a caucus in states Obama won--like WA, ME, IA, KS--or unless they were cast as "Uncommitted" in MI, because that was the only way people could vote for Obama, since he actually honored his agreement not to participate (and good for him, since he was barred from campaigning there, and did not enjoy universal recognition, like Clinton did).

And counting those votes is especially important, right up until to superdelegates override them in Clinton's favor. Right?

Do you really believe your own spin anymore? Really?


by rhetoricus on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:57:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Ratings abuse. (2.00 / 7)


by Dumbo on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:33:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ratings abuse. (1.87 / 8)

looks like.
I'm tossing out 2's to balance out the doughnuts. Obama and Clinton supporters are welcome to share in the bounty should they get unreasonably 0'd, but it looks like Obama supporters are the only ones getting hit in this thread.
The primaries are over!
Focus on McCain
by really not a troll on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:39:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Since a large number (2.00 / 5)

of Obama supporters can no longer rate, I think this is going to be a trend around the entire site.

It's sort of hilarious that it took the destruction of the ratings system by widespread abuse to finally get the mods active. Unfortunately, the seemingly rather one-sided enforcement has completely diminished any import of ratings.

(dusts off shoulders) What are you gonna do, though?


by bookish on Thu May 22, 2008 at 08:13:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

What am I going to do? (none / 0)

Barrel rolls.
::z z:: or
::r r::
The primaries are over!
Focus on McCain
by really not a troll on Thu May 22, 2008 at 08:51:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Since a large number (1.50 / 2)

Your "brushing off your shoulder" is clearly sexist. It doesn't even matter if ladies are pimps too, go'on brush your shoulders off.


unapologetic Obama supporter
by dantes on Thu May 22, 2008 at 08:55:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Please keep this up (1.50 / 2)

This sort of stretch to show "proof" of sexism only undermines the meme, so by all means, continue.

Even if you didn't know the reference to Jay-Z, anyone could come up with the meaning for "dusting off your shoulders," and no reasonable person is going to find a sexist connotation in it.

You undermine your own credibility when you parrot talking points without thinking them through (especially when they come from the mouth of Geraldine Ferraro).


by bookish on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:23:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Please keep this up (none / 0)

i think he was snarking it.


Unable to rec or rate Still supporting Obama
by astoria gooner on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:08:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Obviously an overreaction on my part (none / 0)

I just faced an identical comment sans snark elsewhere, so forgive me for jumping the gun.


by bookish on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:30:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Soitgoes (none / 0)

You've been reported for ratings abuse...again.


by bookish on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:20:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Aw... (none / 0)

Jedley, I would say that what Hillary is doing to this party and this country is "mean."

This diary, in contrast, is hilarious!!

Thanks so much, Julie. Rec'd!!!


by DrPolitics on Thu May 22, 2008 at 08:30:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Aw... (1.75 / 4)

Yeah, it feels a bit like kicking a puppy sometimes.

On the other hand, the puppy is peeing on our floor again, and again, and again...


Can't rec or rate -- next username, please!
by neeborMolgula on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:36:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Aw... (none / 0)

Kick it! Kick it hard!!


by Metrobot on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:26:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Bad Puppy (2.00 / 2)

No VP for you.


Obama 2008!
by lollydee on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:43:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

no respect (1.58 / 12)

...which her campaign helped disenfranchise.

yet another misleading claim. the link argues that because 1 obama supporter voted against disenfranchisement, HRC's campaign is responsible for FL disenfranchisement. Last time I checked those on the committee were supposed to vote, independent of who they support oh my! a committe voting against her campaign, for what they believed was right at the time!! IVE never seen such monsterous action,

you imply that just cause Hillary supporters on this committe voted for disenfranchisement it equaled a vote from HRC herself.

Well that is some flawed logic miss.


Please send money.  Mark Penn is hungry and we need to fundraise to cover his salary for Thursday.  If you don't send money, the Clintons will be forced to part with a small portion of their vast fortunes.  And you wouldn't want that on your conscience.  

great job on effectively pissing on her supporters who have just contributed to her. WHy dont you just go over to my ninety yr old granny's house and spit in her face?? It would make you feel better, no?


Its called courtesy YO, you know like realizing that her supporters are just like you. human and they feel just as strongly about their candidate as you do about yours.




thanks for your bitchin' diary.


lemon716, mydd's little lemon drop;
by alyssa chaos on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:11:57 AM EST

Re: no respect (1.76 / 30)

she said herself that "everyone knows" that the votes Michigan and Florida wouldn't count.

It's out of her own mouth.

Whom do you people think you're fooling with these arguments?  It sure isn't superdelegates or the media.  They're all way smarter than that.  It sure can't be progressive bloggers--the vast majority are way, way smarter than that.  It can't be most of the country's voters--they've already voted.

No, your idiotic arguments are being made to persuade Hillary's supporters to hold a gun to the Party's head and threaten to bail if she doesn't get "selected" as the nominee.  Shameful.


It's all about McCain/Bush now...
by thereisnospoon on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:16:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: no respect (2.00 / 6)

I really fail to understand why Obama fans are so ardent about excluding these two states from our party.  It's pretty clear that it won't change the pledged delegate count.

It's almost as if hating on Florida and Michigan has taken on a life of its own, independent of the partisanship that origianlly engendered it.  

"Punish them!  Punish the people!  Their legislators did a bad bad thing!  Punish them!"


2004 swing state margins: PA-2%, OH-2%, IA-1%, WI-0.5%, MI-3%, FL-5%, NM-1%; Alienating 50% of the party is a luxury we can't afford.
by BPK80 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:39:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I don't care (2.00 / 6)

if they sit Florida and Michigan, except it would be like sending a kid to their room and then telling them five minutes later "eh, nevermind"

But if Hillary's going to scream "popular vote, give me the nomination" out of Florida and Michigan, then I call foul. You add the uncommitted number to Obama's popular vote total, and he wins the popular vote. You cannot argue he did not get one vote in Michigan.


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:51:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't care (2.00 / 5)

You can't punish one group of people for an error committed by an entirely different group.  That would be like punishing your only son because your only daughter stayed out late.

To break it down,

The Villains: Legislators (mostly GOP)

The Victims: Voters


2004 swing state margins: PA-2%, OH-2%, IA-1%, WI-0.5%, MI-3%, FL-5%, NM-1%; Alienating 50% of the party is a luxury we can't afford.
by BPK80 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:02:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes you can (2.00 / 5)

vote them out. Who do we punish then? How do we stop this from happening again?

Michigan's legislators are mostly Democrats.


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:05:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yes you can (2.00 / 4)

Michigan has a GOP legislature.  

Your view of voter behavior is idealistic and not very accurate in my estimation.  The idea that the DNC wholly silencing two states is actually going to make voters retaliate against their legislators who wanted their votes to be counted is preposterous.  The legislators by all public perception appear to be on the same side as the voters.  The DNC would be defining itself as the enemy.  Most of the GOP legislators come from districts with few Democrats anyway, so their seats wouldn't be endangered.

Keep in mind Michigan and Florida have already paid a heavy economic price for their primaries: no influx of campaign funds.  That's tens of millions of dollars out of the state's economy.  How far do you really want to go in "punishing!" the people of a state for an act by their GOP legislatures?

What's next:

"Kill them all if they move the date in 2012"?


2004 swing state margins: PA-2%, OH-2%, IA-1%, WI-0.5%, MI-3%, FL-5%, NM-1%; Alienating 50% of the party is a luxury we can't afford.
by BPK80 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:21:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Sorry (2.00 / 5)

you lost me at Michigan has a GOP legislature.

Obviously you HAVEN'T done research, otherwise you'd know Democrats won back the Michigan House in 2006.


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 08:54:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sorry (none / 0)

GOP Senate.  Forgive me.


2004 swing state margins: PA-2%, OH-2%, IA-1%, WI-0.5%, MI-3%, FL-5%, NM-1%; Alienating 50% of the party is a luxury we can't afford.
by BPK80 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:26:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yes you can (none / 0)

I misstated that, I apologize.

Michigan has a GOP Senate but we control the house.  In my haste of trying to stress that the GOP was complicit and heavily involved in this maneuver (as in Florida, which has a full GOP legislature) I referred to it overbroadly as the full MI legislature.  

Point taken and thanks for the clarification.  


2004 swing state margins: PA-2%, OH-2%, IA-1%, WI-0.5%, MI-3%, FL-5%, NM-1%; Alienating 50% of the party is a luxury we can't afford.
by BPK80 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:29:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't care (none / 0)

He did't get one vote in Michigan. It's not an argument, it's a fact. Now, there are reasons why, but it's a simple fact that he got no votes.


by Mayor McCheese on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:13:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't care (2.00 / 1)

Then stop harping about fairness, if you are willing to accept zero votes for Obama out of Michigan. That is clearly unfair and not reflective of the voter's intent.

p.s. using the generic "you"


by Metrobot on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:29:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't care (none / 0)

Well, here's the problem. How can you even determine a voter's intent in such a case? And how far to take this? Should we award votes to candidates who people say they WOULD have voted for had they been on the ballot in other races. I don't see the unfairness here, since Obama could have made his name available had he so chosen.


by Mayor McCheese on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:35:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't care (2.00 / 1)

It was a fucked up situation, granted. But at the end of the day, do you think those results reflect a fair vote?

I guess I'm trying to highlite, you can't exalt one attribute (fairness) when it serves your interests, and then ignore it when it doesn't. That's the thing that drives a lot of Obama supporters nuts, I think.


by Metrobot on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:45:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't care (none / 0)

Yes, I think they were  fair. If Obama were kicked off the ballot due to a technicality, that would be unfair. Or if Clinton withdrew, let Obama do the same, then got back in at the last minute, that would be unfair.


by Mayor McCheese on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:11:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't care (2.00 / 1)

Or if Clinton pledged to not participate along with everyone else, but decided being the only person people were allowed to vote for was not "participation". You act like Obama took his name off the ballot because he felt like it. They both had good reason to remove their name, Clinton decided not to.


by Okamifujutsu on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:43:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't care (none / 0)

as soon as you go into the realm of "Michigan must count" you are using a moral argument. Once we go into moral arguments, Obama getting zero percent directly contradicts your moral premise. Hence I call foul.

But, I guess may 31 will resolve it once and for all, and then we won't have it to kick around anymore...


by Metrobot on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:57:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't care (none / 0)

Obama was prevented from campaigning in MI, while Clinton already enjoyed universal recognition. Please don't expect us to believe it would have been any kind of fair election even if his name HAD been on the ballot.


by rhetoricus on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:08:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: no respect (1.00 / 1)

I see you've at last figured them out.  It's all about hatred for people from America's mitten and schlong.  Too bad there's no -ism word for that yet.


Can't rec or rate -- next username, please!
by neeborMolgula on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:43:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Lets include them (none / 0)

And truly count every vote.

In FL, Clinton won 49.8% of the vote, if I remember correctly. Obama won ~36%, but the other candidates all endorsed him so he gets ~50.2% if you include those as well.

So, OBAMA WON FLORIDA!


John McCain
by MILiberal on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:53:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Don't speak for me (none / 0)

I'm a MI voter for Obama, and Clinton would be perfectly happy to disenfranchise me. So don't pretend Hillary is interested in anything but the votes for herself.


by rhetoricus on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:06:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: no respect (1.82 / 17)

Here's my problem:

It seems perfectly clear at this point that Michigan was a set-up: agree to not campaign and take your name off the ballot, then leave your name on the ballot, saying it doesn't matter anyway, so why is it even relevant, and then when (surprise!) you get more votes than the other people, then start complaining about Michigan not counting.

It's such an obvious ploy that I'm amazed that no one's talking about it.  This isn't about making sure Michigan counts.  It's about fixing an election.


I'm only a click away
by juliewolf on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:01:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Outright Lie (2.00 / 8)

" agree to not campaign and take your name off the ballot, then leave your name on the ballot"

Hillary never agreed to take her name off the ballot.

Seriously, if you want to make good arguments on behalf of your candidate, you have got to get your facts straight!


2004 swing state margins: PA-2%, OH-2%, IA-1%, WI-0.5%, MI-3%, FL-5%, NM-1%; Alienating 50% of the party is a luxury we can't afford.
by BPK80 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:03:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Why do I have to keep repeating myself!? (1.75 / 8)

For the last time, you do not need to fair, rational, or factual when you are attacking a Clinton.


Linfar's co-blogger opposing John McCain
by psychodrew on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:26:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why do I have to keep repeating myself!? (2.00 / 3)

Maybe some people think that they can get away with saying anything, however specious, just because it coincides with whatever's politically fashionable in the media.  

"She just won by 35%.  OMG that means she should drop out!"

"Another landslide victory for Hillary Clinton.  Will she concede now?"


2004 swing state margins: PA-2%, OH-2%, IA-1%, WI-0.5%, MI-3%, FL-5%, NM-1%; Alienating 50% of the party is a luxury we can't afford.
by BPK80 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:37:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why do I have to keep repeating myself!? (2.00 / 9)

Specious arguments abound right now....

Take the claim that Clinton is leading in popular vote for instance...


Like the nominee, don't like the nominee... Our nominee is still better than John McCain...
by JenKinFLA on Thu May 22, 2008 at 08:35:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why do I have to keep repeating myself!? (none / 0)

Do we really need to go back over the list of states whee she lost by that margin or more?  Hint...it's longer than her two wins.


by oliver cromwell on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:33:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Outright Lie (none / 0)

I think it's more likely a misunderstanding of the facts than an intentional lie. We've had a lot of spin since January, I'm not surprised people have forgotten the details.


by Mobar on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:14:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Outright Lie (none / 0)

"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."


A useless "Community Organizer" from Pennsylvania as noted by Republicans, Rudy Giuliani and Sarah Palin
by hootie4170 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:11:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Outright Lie (none / 0)

Sorry-- to my understanding, agreeing to not participate in an election means taking your name off the ballot.


I'm only a click away
by juliewolf on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:49:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

In Mich. Hillary is being an Unethical Opportunist (1.80 / 5)

She should NOT be rewarded for that.


It's time to restore balance and fairness to our economy,... It's time to stop giving tax cuts to corporations that ship jobs overseas... - Barack Obama
by Lefty Coaster on Thu May 22, 2008 at 08:58:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: no respect (none / 0)

there was no agreement to take names off of the ballot.


by Mayor McCheese on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:14:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That and the fact (2.00 / 13)

that the 12 members of the RBC who are either active Clinton supporters or actually employed by the campaign supported stripping MI and FL of their delegates.

On Aug. 25, when the DNC's rules panel declared Florida's primary date out of order, it agreed by a near-unanimous majority to exceed the 50 percent penalty called for under party rules. Instead, the group stripped Florida of all 210 delegates to underscore its displeasure with Florida's defiance and to discourage other states from following suit. In doing so, the DNC essentially committed itself, for fairness' sake, to strip the similarly defiant Michigan of all 156 of its delegates three months later. Clinton held tremendous potential leverage over this decision, and not only because she was then widely judged the likely nominee. Of the committee's 30 members, a near-majority of 12 were Clinton supporters. All of them--most notably strategist Harold Ickes--voted for Florida's full disenfranchisement. (The only dissenting vote was cast by a Tallahassee, Fla., city commissioner who supported Obama.)...

Now Clinton feels that a failure to seat the Michigan and Florida delegates would besmirch the democratic process. With Obama ahead on pledged delegates and drawing growing numbers of superdelegates, Clinton will have only a limited ability to affect whether the DNC backs off from its decisions to penalize the two states. Last summer and fall, when the DNC made these decisions, she had a lot more clout. She exercised none of it.

http://www.slate.com/id/2188985/


by bookish on Thu May 22, 2008 at 08:23:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That and the fact (none / 0)

my rebuttal:

[in respect but you'll never know why they (the hillary supoorters on the committee) voted the way they did unless they tell you outright and even if they did, they could be lying. MEaning it is not anyones place to accuse the Clinton Campaign for having a hand in Fl and MI's stripped delegates.

All you have to go on is the reasoning that because they were her supporters they would have pushed her agenda and that her agenda should have won because there was a majority of them; that very well may be the case (that they did push the agenda,) but for the diarist to some how state that this link and logic shows the clinton campaign's involvement in the stripping of FL and MI, is far from the truth.

this diarist,you, and the author of the link (the insinuations made by the blog) are guessing as to why they (the committee members) voted the way they did.you are assuming the committee members voted in Clinton's favor. you guys are filling in the blanks however you see fit. It is not a science or even supported by fact, its opinion and assumption.You cant prove it and therefore it isn't credible in the least bit. Unless you have credible proof that she had a hand in the MI and FL debacle, your  first claim is false and grasping at best.

It could very well be true and can just as likely be false. we will never know. and thats why it is ultimately flawed and unarguable.]




thats what I was trying to argue the first time.


lemon716, mydd's little lemon drop;
by alyssa chaos on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:51:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That and the fact (none / 0)

Then why is Obama blamed for stopping the re-vote in Michigan?  Same premise and argument from Clinton and her camp, that his supporters in the Michigan legislature stopped them because it favored Obama's agenda.  You have to apply your reasoning to both cases.


A useless "Community Organizer" from Pennsylvania as noted by Republicans, Rudy Giuliani and Sarah Palin
by hootie4170 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:14:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That and the fact (none / 0)

never do I argue in my reply that MI stopped the vote, so your 'assumption' dicredits your logic. You assume what I believe the scenario of 'MI legistlator scenario' because of who I support, your second mistake.


lemon716, mydd's little lemon drop;
by alyssa chaos on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:21:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That and the fact (none / 0)

No my point is many Clinton supporters have said Obama blocked the revote in MI, because supporters of his voted against it.  Just as Obama supporters claim that many Clinton surrogates voted to strip both states of their delegates.  Using your logic both arguments are null and void.


A useless "Community Organizer" from Pennsylvania as noted by Republicans, Rudy Giuliani and Sarah Palin
by hootie4170 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:43:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That and the fact (none / 0)

well I not sure about your claim, I thought most 'believed' that because Barack refused to put his stamp of approval on the mail-in initiatives having issues with it, thats how he 'blocked the revotes'. Because he refused to engage in any proposals for the seatment other than, 'lets split them 50-50' (almost a beauty contest in itself) he was seen as effectively against them. He shot done all ideas presented (mail in& fundong another primary) and presented none that did not include skewing the results (the 50-50 split wouldn't be based on any votes, but seems like a mild attempt at trying to brush the whole mess under the rug) many outside observers saw that he was not part of the solution so therefore....

[Im not sure which Clinton supporters or specific claims you refer to, I only put forward what I am aware of.....]

Honestly at this point in time its a dead issue, we had a chance to possibly hold a fair primary by having Barack on the ballot, but that was shot down and that time has come and gone. There may not be a solution to MI, but FL looks more promising on the merits of fairness....

[i honestly believe the superdelegates should be stripped from FL and MI, they have a sole responsibility to stand up for their constituents and they couldn't even do that. To my knowledge they still have their right to vote presently and I think that in 2012 their seatment should be stripped in respect to their shitty job this year]


lemon716, mydd's little lemon drop;
by alyssa chaos on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:52:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: no respect (2.00 / 1)

She also said in that same quote (that MI wouldn't count @ that time) that she left her name on the ballot to not disenfranchise those MI voters who wanted to vote, and to keep the presence there of a Democrat in an important swing state so that the Republican's wouldn't have free reign to campaign and politic all they wanted to until the GE.

Obama and Edwards pulled their names off of the ballot in a stunt to try and ambush Clinton...yet she was not the only one who left her name on the ballot to try and push the "politics as usual" theme that Obama started pushing in NH.  It's not her fault that Obama and Edwards pulled their names off, they gambled and lost.  Clinton recognized that the DNC would have to do something with MI & FL at the convention at the time, but didn't want to leave the state feeling as if the DEMOCRATS abandoned them and that they were not worth anything and then have to repair that damage in the fall leading into the GE.

Your attempt to insinuate that she changed her mind until AFTER NH is ludicrious.  The reason that is so, is that the interview you cite in your quote of her...was from October of 2007.  BEFORE the NH