Senator Clinton On MSNBC

Keith: What was that event in Florida?

Clinton: It was a great victory for the voters of Florida. Their votes will be counted."

Update [2008-1-29 22:29:23 by Todd Beeton]:Clinton: "We agreed that we would not campaign in Michigan and Florida and we did not."

Clinton: "Any Democrat needs to win Florida and Michigan if we're going to have a victory in November. We need to start thinking about victory for the Democrats and that's what I'm going to do."

Update [2008-1-29 22:30:48 by Todd Beeton]:Clinton: "Americans want a president who cares about them again."

Update [2008-1-29 22:34:23 by Todd Beeton]: Clinton: "I have the experience we need to make the changes we want."

The fact that she's getting this interview (and I assume other networks interviewed her as well...?) means she won this round, eh?

Tags: Hillary Clinton (all tags)



Re: Senator Clinton On MSNBC

The Clintons being dirty in Florida. This Clinton interview is ridiculous beyond belief. The Florida delegates won't count in the end.

by Djneedle83 2008-01-29 05:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Senator Clinton On MSNBC

You understand that if Obama does the sit the FL and MI delegates, he would have disenfranchised almost TWO MILLION voters, so he could claim victory?

Who is cleaner here?

by kristoph 2008-01-29 05:33PM | 0 recs
Hillary deserves credit.

She got an important win tonight.

It will help her a little going into Feb 5th.

Time to move on to Super Tuesday.

by enthusiast 2008-01-29 06:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Senator Clinton On MSNBC

Yeah, how dirty it is the let the voices of over 1.5 million Americans be heard.  The idea is just sickening, especially in a democracy.

by musicpvm 2008-01-29 05:34PM | 0 recs
The MI and FL Democratic Parties did it

What about the rules?  Didn't everybody agree that because the Michigan and Florida Democratic Parties moved their primary to dates that were earlier than what the Democratic National Committee allowed, that they would lose ALL delegates to the Democratic National Convention?  This wasn't an issue until TWO DAYS ago after Clinton got pounded in South Carolina, and then she realized she would have a fight on her hands for the nomination that she SUDDENLY decided that Florida did matter, and especially after they griped about Obama running a national TV ad that just happened to go into Florida.  The Democratic National Committee offered the state parties a way out, to schedule caucuses for those states.  They even offered to help pay for it, too.  But, because they thought they wouldn't be important, they decided to pass up the opprotunity to have their voices heard.

This is what is aggravating about the Clintons.  The only thing important to them is winning, and ++++ the rules if necessary.

by tlsmith 2008-01-29 06:11PM | 0 recs
Re: The MI and FL Democratic Parties did it

really ... are you telling me that if obama was favored and won in the state that he wouldn't be asking for the delegates to be seated?  that's essentially what you are suggesting, which, nothing personal, i don't buy.  in the end, we'll never know i guess, and obama can always say no, he wouldn't.  but what of his delegates.  what if the number from his 33 or so percent actually ends up helping him?

by toonsterwu 2008-01-29 06:15PM | 0 recs
Re: The MI and FL Democratic Parties did it

Some candidates have ethics. That includes Edwards and Obama.

by waldo 2008-01-29 09:46PM | 0 recs
Re: The MI and FL Democratic Parties did it

I have a hard time buying that, had Obama been favored and won the state, he wouldn't push for the delegates to be seated, considering he basically admits to it in the tbo article that the poster below put up.

I wouldn't fault him if he wanted to seat them if he had won.  Of course, since that didn't happen, it is merely a hypothetical and Obama supporters can claim otherwise.  

by toonsterwu 2008-01-29 09:59PM | 0 recs
those damn Clintons!

Insisting that every vote be counted! The nerve! What about the rules?

by souvarine 2008-01-29 06:16PM | 0 recs
Yes, What About Those Rules

Of course, Obama would never, ever consider going against those rules. Oh, wait. Maybe he would. 9/30/07

TAMPA - Barack Obama hinted during a Tampa fundraiser Sunday that if he's the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, he'll seat a Florida delegation at the party's national convention, despite national party sanctions prohibiting it.

Obama also appeared to violate a pledge he and the other leading candidates took by holding a brief news conference outside the fundraiser. That was less than a day after the pledge took effect Saturday, and Obama is the first Democratic presidential candidate to visit Florida since then.
The pledge covers anything referred to in Democratic National Committee rules as "campaigning," and those include "holding news conferences." [ obama-vows-do-whats-right/?news-breaking ]

by MOBlue 2008-01-29 06:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Yes, What About Those Rules

ouch ... i honestly didn't hear about this ... i wonder what obama supporters have to say about this ...

by toonsterwu 2008-01-29 06:37PM | 0 recs
Probably That It Is Different Somehow n/t

by MOBlue 2008-01-29 07:03PM | 0 recs
Re: The MI and FL Democratic Parties did it

how deoes that explain voters actually voting tilsmth? Are you claiming they didn't know who they were voting for - again - like in Michigan? Please. I have to believe even absentee voters knew the state of their electorals because this "ban" has been in effect for soem time. All of those Obama supporters didn't know what they were doing?.

by India 2008-01-29 06:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Senator Clinton On MSNBC

By staging a victory party in Florida's Primary, once again the Clintons give another slap in the face to the Democratic Party and prove that they think they are above the law, that they do not have to follow the rules laid down by others, the Democratic National Committee,  or that they can change the way the game is played in mid-stream.  Hillary Clinton spoke at the staged victory party and called it "a robust election" yet she was the only one at the party.  It is this kind of behavior and attitudes which will show, the measure of their true future worth, and how they will govern.  It was a humorous and sad spectacle to witness, as they tried to dupe the people into thinking that black is white, when there really was no contest and the Edwards and Obama people had not been on the ground, so there was actually no fair playing ground.  BUT WHO WANTS TO PLAY FAIR?   And the outrage of it all is that the media was complicit in this charade by televising it as if there had been a fair victory or victory at all!

Thomas Jefferson said the following:  "Our citizens may be deceived for awhile, and have been deceived; but as long as the presses can be protected, we may trust to them for light."   Thomas Jefferson knew the necessity of  a press that is free to investigate and criticize the government -- "that it was  absolutely essential in a nation that practices self-government and is therefore dependent on an educated and enlightened citizenry.   On the other hand, newspapers too often take advantage of their freedom and publish lies and scurrilous gossip that could only deceive and mislead the people."  ARE THERE NO MORAL GIANTS IN THE MEDIA ANYMORE?

These kind of tactics spit in the face of society's laws set up for itself, they divide and seem to be devoid of a conscience.  As we move forward the newer politicians will be concerned about the whole, while the old-party politicians will concerned about the separative self, the ego!   Martin Luther King taught  "Vanity asks the question - is it popular? Conscience asks the question - is it right?"   This behavior is an example of separative and divisive behavior and are old time party politics,  it should be a thing of the past  and should be no part of going forward into the 21st Century as we move towards cleaner air, cleaner water, cleaner politics, towards a more holistic way of living.  America is in decay -- our bridges, our infrastructure, our schools, our politicians, our media, our whole way of life are in decay.  We need strong leaders, honest and forthright, full of hope and substance, devoid of ego, as we have much work to do!

The leaders we elect to office should be people of high moral character, honest and forthright.  Politics must become the highest, sacred function.  We need many political and global saints.  Then government will become a sacred duty, a respect for humanity and no longer the object of narrow humans wills, whims, interests, gains and ambitions.

by bacalove 2008-01-30 03:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Senator Clinton On MSNBC

Honestly, the more I think about it, the stupider it seems that the Democratic party is willing to discount the voters of these two large states.

Disenfranchise voters?  Is this the American way?

by manny 2008-01-29 05:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Senator Clinton On MSNBC

I understand the sentiment, but you cannot change the rules once the game has started. Look GOTV efforts have been huge in every state that has voted so far without GOTV in FL, we really don't know how to score it. A 15-20 percent win is about what one would expect without the candidates participating. That said she probably would have won FL anyway, but it would probably have been on the order of NV or NH. You just cannot seat them now, it makes no sense.

by benb 2008-01-29 06:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Senator Clinton On MSNBC

Connecticut was the first state polled after S.C and it's all tied baby. 40 clinton 40 Obama 11 Edwards.

by Djneedle83 2008-01-29 05:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Senator Clinton On MSNBC

I love your trust in Rassmussen

by ottovbvs 2008-01-29 05:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Senator Clinton On MSNBC

i'm not too surprised by that.  when was that poll taken?  if there's a significant impact from the ted kennedy, patrick kennedy endorsement, it's going to come up north.  that said, i doubt it influences massachusetts from the little i know about mass politics.

by toonsterwu 2008-01-29 05:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Senator Clinton On MSNBC

Actually, FL was polled much more aggressively and there was no change. There were also two national tracking polls (Rasmussen and Gallup) and they showed no change.

by kristoph 2008-01-29 05:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Senator Clinton On MSNBC

With proportional delegate counting, you are going to need blowouts to get ahead.  Obama had SC, (11 more delegates).  Next Tuesday, HRC will have NY, NJ, CA, OK, AR, etc.  Obama will have IL and what?  Close wins are draws.

by CVDem 2008-01-29 05:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Senator Clinton On MSNBC

and except FL (19% AA Dem voters).

by souvarine 2008-01-29 05:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Senator Clinton On MSNBC

There are six of them but three are in the teens and one of the ones in the twenties is AK.

His range on ST is probably 1-6 Personally I only see him making it in three or four. And in some of these southern states believe me old habits die hard on the white side.

by ottovbvs 2008-01-29 05:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Senator Clinton On MSNBC

You threw me for a loop there.  AK means Alaska!

by Steve M 2008-01-29 05:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Senator Clinton On MSNBC

He needs more then 15%, probably more like 25-30%.

by kristoph 2008-01-29 05:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Senator Clinton On MSNBC

Obama should carry GA, AL, IL, MN, KS, CO, ND, UT, ID, and AK.  TN, MO, and possibly CT are in play.  Obama is also playing the congressional district game in CA, AZ, NY, and NJ.

by tlsmith 2008-01-29 06:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Senator Clinton On MSNBC

I believe he can take GA, IL, CO, he might have a shot in TN and CT.

He is not going to take AL or MO ...

AL: Clinton 43, Obama 28
MO: Clinton 43, Obama 24

... the other races have no polling so we're just wildly speculating.

by kristoph 2008-01-29 07:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Senator Clinton On MSNBC

We know Connecticut is a bell weather of where Democrats really want to model their elections on.

by rcipw 2008-01-29 05:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Senator Clinton On MSNBC

you know, i like olbermann ... from his espn days ... but geesh, he is going a bit overboard ... not acknowledging the event doesn't hurt Hillary as much as the msm might want to believe ... rather it hurts the people of florida more ..

yes i support hillary.  but at the end of the day, i think this is a win for florida democrats.  sure, maybe there were peripheral reasons, as donna brazile noted, as to why they showed up.  but they still showed up, which shows that some get out the vote effort was there and it succeeded, no matter what the intent was.

look, i honestly don't think this will play as big an impact on super tuesday as some other hillary supporters think.  i think what happens at the debate and what happens in the next few days will decide if obama can keep up.  but to not acknowledge something that clearly happened is ridiculous.  this primary occurred. whether or not the delegates are seated is a question for another time.  but this primary occurred.  it's as simple as that.

by toonsterwu 2008-01-29 05:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Senator Clinton On MSNBC

My belief is not based on mojo or anything like that. It's based on the dimensions of the relative coalitions. To me Clintons came in uncannily as before just as did Obama's. Edwards did a better than I expected and that probably pulled Clinton down maybe three or four points and Obama one or two. I agree the debate and campaining and gotv is important but we should keep debates in perspective. Did anyone ever turn in  a more miserable debate performance in 04 than Dubya?    

by ottovbvs 2008-01-29 05:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Senator Clinton On MSNBC

what i would say, though, is that, and i think we are both supporting the same person, obama can't get out there enough.  i don't think the dynamics hold as a comparison.  maybe there's past historical precedence, but in this case, i think obama's inability to get out there to every key area (and that's no knock on him, just the facts of time) will put him at a disadvantage.  unlike kerry, i think clinton can win on the policy aspects without sounding, well, like a book.

ugh, i'm not phrasing this all too well.  i guess what i'm saying is that i think clinton can win the policy and not lose the "humanness" aspect significantly due to the lack of time, which is where i think kerry faltered.

by toonsterwu 2008-01-29 05:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Senator Clinton On MSNBC

Yes, but it's also obviously unfair to use the delegates when candidate sat out the campaign.

The results very likely would have been different if the candidates had not kept to their pledges to not campaign.

by mainelib 2008-01-29 05:35PM | 0 recs
Look, Obama received 33% of the vote...

...He's eligible for delegates himself.

33% of Florida Democratic voters expressed that they wanted delegates pledged to Obama to represent them at the Democratic National Convention.

How do you tell the 33% of Florida Democrats, who supported Obama, that they don't deserve representation in Denver.

by Andre Walker 2008-01-29 05:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Look, Obama received 33% of the vote...

I thought it was winner take all, or is that just for Republicans?

by manny 2008-01-29 05:41PM | 0 recs
It's just for the Republicans...

...Florida Democrats allocate by proportional methods.

by Andre Walker 2008-01-29 05:43PM | 0 recs
Re: It's just for the Republicans...

then it makes even less sense for the Obama crowd to cry foul.  I mean, seriously, shouldn't it be Democrats who want to count all votes.  

It not like Hillary was campaigning there and no one else was permitted to.  

How can we as Democrats say that their votes don't count?

by manny 2008-01-29 05:48PM | 0 recs
Re: It's just for the Republicans...

It's actually a DNC rule that you have to be proportional.  All Dem states have to be that way.  Even the really really naughty ones like Florida, which hardly deserves to be a state any more.

by rcipw 2008-01-29 06:04PM | 0 recs
Re: It's just for the Republicans...

Ya know what strikes me as hypocritical?

I will guarantee that if the situation were reversed and Obama had won Michigan and Florida Hillary and Bill would be screaming that the delegates won't be seated- and I am fine with that. You broke the rules, you pay the fine; thats just the way it goes.

But all of the Clinton supporters here complaining about disenfranchisement would be doing the same thing "it doesn't matter, they won't be seated."

Rules are rules people. It sucks, I personally hate to see it happen. But that is the way it is going to happen.  

by JDF 2008-01-29 06:17PM | 0 recs
Re: It's just for the Republicans...

I agree on some of this, especially since one would think that Obama's whole approach is about letting people's voices be heard and not about insider/establishment rules.

However, the fact that he can rely as much on exclusion and insider rules as he is says a lot about who he really is I think.

However, I know I personally have lived in Florida and care about the state, and I believe both Clintons feel a deep personal connection with Florida on several levels, so I doubt they would be taunting and mocking the state to the same level as Obama and his campaign.

by rcipw 2008-01-29 06:28PM | 0 recs
Re: It's just for the Republicans...

This Clinton supporter would be siding with the voters, no matter what state we are talking about or who was likely to win. DNC rules are not more important than making sure that the party hears from 1.5 million voters.  It's not even a close call in my book.  I think all of the candidates were stupid to sign the damn pledge in the first place.

by Denny Crane 2008-01-29 08:18PM | 0 recs
Re: It's just for the Republicans...

I'm a Floridian and not a Clinton supporter. I broke no rules. I've been a loyal Dem voter my entire life. Even voted for my crappy Dem senator as we needed every dem we could get (so I've been told).

The rules were broken by the legislature here, not the people. Then instead of follow the punishment laid out in those same rules, the R&B Committee of the DNC decided to take all the delegates instead of just half.

Still not satisfied, the dem leaders in the 4 early states decided to have the candidates pledge to ignore Florida voters. Which most of the candidates, including Obama, Clinton and Edwards, went along with.

The rules allowing the seating of those delegates were there all along during this process. If some people were too busy gloating over Florida being smacked down (not you I'm talking about the politicians) to pay attention to the rules that is just too bad.

I don't want those delegates seated. But the rules allow it. And it isn't cheating. It isn't breaking the rules. It isn't bending the rules. So everyone who thinks the rules matter, should at least have the decency to admit that then the delegates MAY be seated. Per the freaking rules.

by Step Beyond 2008-01-29 10:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Senator Clinton On MSNBC

o you mean Obama's ads. Well we'll give him a mulligan on those.

by ottovbvs 2008-01-29 05:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Senator Clinton On MSNBC

so are Edwards, Obama, and Clinton all going to be going to every single state voting on February 5th?  Should the delegates not count for states they do not campaign with that day and after the 5th?  The voters of Florida are not idiots, they have been following these candidates just as the rest of us have been.

by musicpvm 2008-01-29 05:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Senator Clinton On MSNBC

Well, are they all going to set foot in California, or just run TV ads?  Each state has its own unique strategy.  The fact that they won't set foot in certain states says nothing about how the primary would have turned out in Florida if they were all allowed to campaign freely there.  After all, if speeches, campaign stops, field offices, etc. were totally unnecessary, then why do the candidates use them?

by rfahey22 2008-01-29 06:02PM | 0 recs

I live in Maryland and I doubt that the Obama and Clinton campaigns will invest much time here. We probably won't get any tv ads either since this market is so expensive.

I'm sure that there won't be any campaigning/advertising in Alaska or Wyoming or any of the obscure states. Yet their delegates will get seated most likely....

It was stupid of Howard Dean and the DNC to decide to disregard the delegates. They could have at least done what the RNC did and just allow half the delegates to count. Oh, well, whatever it takes for Dean/DNC to help their guy Obama win the election. With no campaigning in Florida, Obama was able to conserve his money and devote all of his resources to Iowa and South Carolina. If he had to spend money in Florida, he would have had a hard time competing in the Super Tuesday states. So, Dean helped Obama out.

That's fine. She's got all the media against her. Liberal bloggers are against her. Many Democratic establishment figures are against her. Of course, Republicans are against her. And she just keeps on ticking. You go Hillary!! You can beat them all!!

by ademption 2008-01-29 06:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Seriously
I'm in Maryland, too-our primary is Feb 12, a week after Super Tuesday.  We may or may not make a difference.
Donna Brazile, on CNN tonight, said there are ways for FL and MI to have their delegates seated at the convention.  States have done that in the past.  Donna ran Gore's winning/losing campaign and is now a high ranking DNC official.
Go Hillary-win it all!
by CLK 2008-01-29 06:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Seriously

Donna Brazile is a bitch - She pushed to have all the delegates stripped, instead of the customary Half -- (Repugs got half of their delegates stripped).

by sepulvedaj3 2008-01-30 06:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Senator Clinton On MSNBC

Hillary's going to court if need be to get those delegates.  She's take Chelsea to court if she had to - to win.

We OWE her - you know.

by coonbug 2008-01-29 05:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Senator Clinton On MSNBC

Actually, she didn't say that she would, but if she does, it will be to ensure that the voters in Florida are not disenfranchised.  What the hell is it with Democrats who want to strip voters of their right to have their votes counted, especially in Florida?!?

by manny 2008-01-29 05:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Senator Clinton On MSNBC

Right- her motives are 100% pure.

Let me ask you this: DO you really think she would be such a big fan of seating the delegates if she lost Florida? In your heart of hearts do you believe that?

by JDF 2008-01-29 06:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Senator Clinton On MSNBC

to be honest, i actually think she'd be more open to it than obama, but perhaps that's an issue of degrees, as she has some strategic advantages on february 5th.

but let's take a step back.  what's the bigger negative?  telling people that they don't have a say because political operatives made some decision?  or telling political operatives that the rules stick.

at a certain point, democrats need to look big picture.  maybe you are right.  maybe she says no.  i'd be willing to bet that if obama won, he'd be crying to high heavens for those to be seated.  so both ways work in critiquing the other side as hypocritical.

at the end of the day, yes, this is about candidates, but this is also about the party, the left, progressives, and so forth.  i'll stick by what i said in the other thread.  if obama wins the nominee, i'll support him, and i hope he would take a moment to thank hillary for showing up tonight.  because i honestly believe that the psychological effect of hillary showing up tonight, hitting the airwaves, may collectively, to put it nicely, save the democrats asses in florida.

by toonsterwu 2008-01-29 06:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Senator Clinton On MSNBC

Does anybody know the backstory of why Mathews doesn't like the Clinton's and vise versa? Is it because of the Lewisnky thing and his coverage?

by ND1979 2008-01-29 05:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Senator Clinton On MSNBC

Everyone in the media hates the Clintons, but Matthews really does have a serious issue with women.  I'm not just being flip here.

by Steve M 2008-01-29 05:38PM | 0 recs
he is kind of cute, though....

don't you think?

goofy and ridiculous, but cute

by enthusiast 2008-01-29 06:05PM | 0 recs
Re: he is kind of cute, though....

If the results of these elections didn't actually matter, he'd be hilarious!

Bob Somerby at the Daily Howler likes to say that we're in Iraq because of the way people like Matthews trashed Al Gore.  He's not wrong.

by Steve M 2008-01-29 06:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Senator Clinton On MSNBC

No, I don't think that Matthews liked the Clintons even before that. You have to remember that Matthews was once a Carter employee and the Carters and the Clintons haven't gotten along b/c Clinton blames Carter for his Ark gubernatorial loss in 1980. If you notice the Carter people  like Brezinski(sp) have a lot of animus towards the Clintons. I don't think that's an accident. The Carter machine was replaced by the Clinton machine and Chris was part of that Carter machine....

by ademption 2008-01-29 05:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Senator Clinton On MSNBC

I find it appalling that this party, the same party that was clamoring for all the votes to be counted in 2000 is now saying that Michigan and Florida shouldn't count?


It's stupid. Why should Iowa and New Hampshire matter more? Facts are facts-- Hillary Clinton won Florida. This should be the story there, but the MSM which seems to be blowing Obama at the moment is refusing to even acknowledge it. People voted in Florida today. They took the time to have their voices heard. The delegates should be seated.

by falcon4e 2008-01-29 05:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Senator Clinton On MSNBC

Exactly, the reason Bush won in 2000 was because of Florida, because the votes of Floridians were not counted accurately.  And now our own party is willing to do the same thing and in same state that gave Bush a victory due to voter disenfranchisement, a crucial swing state we need if we want to win in November.  the DNC is a joke, their punishment was far too harsh, they are blatantly pro-Obama.  and the way the pro-Obama media thinks they can hijack this election is ridiculous.  Everything is being done to discount the votes of real Americans in these primaries.

by musicpvm 2008-01-29 06:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Senator Clinton On MSNBC

The real question is why people are clamboring for the votes to be counted after the fact.  Where was the outrage when this policy was announced so many months ago?  It isn't like this was a surprise.  

by rfahey22 2008-01-29 06:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Senator Clinton On MSNBC

There was plenty of outrage here and at DailyKos. Markos called it Dean's most brain-dead move.

by souvarine 2008-01-29 06:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Senator Clinton On MSNBC

I meant from the candidates.  The timing here seems a bit manipulative and cynical.

by rfahey22 2008-01-29 07:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Senator Clinton On MSNBC

The thing is, basically, that all candidates were in the "suck up to the early states" stage.  Obviously, what happened was to someone's advantage, and someone else's disadvantage, but no one could afford to upset the early states by complaining.  It's ridiculous the hold those states have over the entire process.

by Steve M 2008-01-29 07:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Senator Clinton On MSNBC

Hillary was also on CNN and FOX. Obama is probably mad that she's getting the attention.

by Tove 2008-01-29 05:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Senator Clinton On MSNBC

I bet he is. They did everything they could to limit the narrative. She'll be on all the morning shows tomorrow.

Clinton won his round but it's only the 4the inning.

by kristoph 2008-01-29 05:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Senator Clinton On MSNBC

Can we please be consistent in our sports analogies:

There can not be both rounds and innings. Unless she is a two sport athlete...which I suppose is possible.


by JDF 2008-01-29 06:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Senator Clinton On MSNBC

This is a very savvy move on Clinton's part, despite the naysayers. Her coverage in FL, and standing on their side, will benefit her greatly later on...

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-01-29 05:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Senator Clinton On MSNBC

agreed.  this is the type of thing that can engender support for hillary.  she's fighting for the people.  i think psychologically, this may allow her to make headway against the whole "obama is the people's choice" if she plays it right.  at the end, if this is simply planning for the ge, that's wise as well.

by toonsterwu 2008-01-29 05:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Senator Clinton On MSNBC


Clinton even got more votes than McCain.  This will be remembered fondly by Florida Dems and independents who are very passionate about having their vote counted.  I wonder why that is...

And this is exactly why this is a losing strategy for Obama.  He might gain some short term points (we will see) but you can't treat a whole state like "lepers" and taunt them on how their votes don't count, and not expect it to bite you later on.

And before folks freak about about "lepers," that is how Adam Smith, the political editor of Florida's largest newspaper, the St. Pete Times, described how Obama and his campaign were treating Florida voters.

by rcipw 2008-01-29 06:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Senator Clinton On MSNBC

No they shouldn't the Florida Democratic party disenfranchised their voters. If there is someone to blame it's them

by orin76 2008-01-29 05:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Senator Clinton On MSNBC

The first thing that will be decided at the convention is if the FL and MI delegaty can sit.

The other delegates get to vote on this.

The candidates control the delegates, hence the delegates decide who can sit. If they don't sit them they are disenfranchising 2 million voters for their benefit, it's a simple as that.

by kristoph 2008-01-29 05:58PM | 0 recs
Florida Is Controlled By Republicans

at the state level. Senate - Rep 26, Dem 14
House - Rep. 79, Dem 41

The decision to move the primary forward was a Republican decision.  Yet it is the Democratic voters who are being completely disenfranchised. The Republicans are seating half of the delegates.

by MOBlue 2008-01-29 06:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Senator Clinton On MSNBC

you do know that the date was set by the legislature through a statute (controlled by republicans) and signed into law by a Republican governor right?

You know that in that process, the Repugs knew that florida would be stripped of all the delegates and Repugs would only be stripped of half.

You do know that after they moved, and FL was stripped, the Repugs have been campaigning in FL saying how the dems are ignoring FL, giving them a 6 month head start in campaigning in the Sunshine state.

YOU ALSO know that Repugs are trying to get an anti gay marriage amendment on in FL, like they did in Ohio in 2004, to try to shore up FL in the repug column again in 2008-

You do know that this isnt about Obama, or Clinton right now, but about the GE in November.

Oh wait, obviously you have no fucking clue what you are talking about.

by sepulvedaj3 2008-01-30 06:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Senator Clinton On MSNBC

I'm glad Olberman called out Clinton on her laughter that her acting coach told her to do in interviews.

by Djneedle83 2008-01-29 05:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Senator Clinton On MSNBC

I'm glad you live in a world of denial and think Obama is going to come out the winner on February 5th, can't wait until next Tuesday.

by musicpvm 2008-01-29 06:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Senator Clinton On MSNBC

Exactly. And if Obama wins the nomination, not a few FL voters might remember how much his campaign belittled their votes.

by OrangeFur 2008-01-29 05:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Senator Clinton On MSNBC

Florida  isn't a given.  I worry about Michigan.

by manny 2008-01-29 05:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Senator Clinton On MSNBC

It will only matter if he personally and publicly makes a fuss; which he probably won't.

Here is what will happen if he wins (without Fl and MI,) he will never say a word about it before or during the convention. Afterwards he will make the rounds with all of the party people in both of those states and spend a lot of time there (he would have to in Florida anyway; so no real loss there.) He will make it a point that he wants to see the DNC rules changed so that the primary process is more fair and he will ultimately win over the Dems in those states.

I love the way everyone here thinks it would be a big deal. I'd be willing to bet that at least 50% of dem voters in each state don't really pay attention to the delegate situation and of those that do only a very small percentage will actually hold it against a candidate. It will be possible to make up with those people.

by JDF 2008-01-29 06:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Senator Clinton On MSNBC

It will only be a big deal if the difference between winning and loosing is sitting those delegates.

Just think about it ..

John McCain shows up in Florida and says 'Barack Obama took away your votes so he could be the nominee.' which would be sort of true.

How many of those over 65 independents (which decide who wins or looses in FL) you think Obama will get?

by kristoph 2008-01-29 07:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Senator Clinton On MSNBC

I have to say, as a Clinton supporter, that I am also glad.

The last time they did stuff like this Clinton's support among women increased by a large margin.

by kristoph 2008-01-29 07:43PM | 0 recs
She appeared on all the cable networks

Wolf interviewed her on CNN; Chris Wallace interviewed her on Fox News and as you noted, Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews interviewed her on MSNBC.

During all the interviews, she stayed on point, positive. When asked by Chris Wallace of Fox News about the snub last night, she said that she extended her hand out of friendship and she will continue to extend her hand in friendship to Obama at the next debate.

She focused on issues during all the interviews--foreclosure of homes, uninsured etc. When asked about Bill's role in the campaign, she said that her surrogates sometimes get on hand, but from now until Super Tuesday, she and her campaign would stick with the issues.

All in all, I think she had a good night in terms of trying to change the message and tone of her campaign to a positive one....

by ademption 2008-01-29 05:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Senator Clinton On MSNBC

Good to see ya, Falcon. Great win by HRC tonight and unless the Dem's want to hand the White House to McCain, they will seat AND count this delegates. Unfortunately, everybody can't see how bad this can be for our party.

If Obama wins and goes on to the general, he isn't winning without Michigan. They have, what 18-25 electoral votes?

The problem is that any decision will be political and biased by the candidates or supporters views.

The DNC erred here. Iowa and New Hampshire aren't representative of America and they realized that. That's why they threw Nevada in. That's why they threw South Carolina in.

by ND1979 2008-01-29 05:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Senator Clinton On MSNBC

What are the final figures for Florida?  The Florida Dept of State site is still being updated from time to time.

by Shaun Appleby 2008-01-29 05:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Senator Clinton On MSNBC


at 91%, cnn has

hillary 50
obama 33
edwards 14
kucinich 1

by toonsterwu 2008-01-29 05:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Senator Clinton On MSNBC

Thanks.  Seems like it has ended Hillary 49.7%, Obama 33.0% and Edwards 14.4% on the Florida DoS website, which is the same.  I thought Edwards was going to do better there for awhile.

by Shaun Appleby 2008-01-30 03:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Senator Clinton On MSNBC

Still counting. 50-33% 814k-538k

by ND1979 2008-01-29 05:48PM | 0 recs
Obama dumped the

rest of his rezko dollars tonight, so that worked for him.

by CardBoard 2008-01-29 05:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Senator Clinton On MSNBC

Looks like Hillary will be kept under 50%

Is this somewhat of a small victory for Obama?

by Socks The Cat 2008-01-29 05:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Senator Clinton On MSNBC

a 33 to 50 defeat for Obama is a victory?  HOW?  None of the candidates campaigned in Florida, she had no advantage, if anybody had the advantage it was Obama who ran ads.

by musicpvm 2008-01-29 06:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Senator Clinton On MSNBC

If anyone had an advantage it is Hillary who is still better known and better understood through most of the nation than Obama. The Clinton brand name pretty much locks up a % of the vote for her without campaigning and there is nothing ads can do about that.

by JDF 2008-01-29 06:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Senator Clinton On MSNBC

Did we not have this discussion?

If that's the basis of her win, how will Obama win elsewhere?

by kristoph 2008-01-29 07:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Senator Clinton On MSNBC

That is absolute nonsense.  You could claim that polls were driven on name recognition 6 months ago, but you certainly can't claim that's how people are voting now. Obama's name recognition is just as high as Hillary's. Please.

by Denny Crane 2008-01-29 08:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Senator Clinton On MSNBC

Looks like Hillary will be kept under 50%

Under 50? the last time I looked 50 was 50 and in any case there's another about 8% to go. It's going to end up at around fifty. I'm surprised that Obama fans thought 33% was impressive. Given all the hype of the past 48 hours it was fairly poor. The guy who surprised me is Edwards. I thought he'd be struggling to break 10. Back to the drawing board on my calcs.

by ottovbvs 2008-01-29 06:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Senator Clinton On MSNBC

Socks the Cat,

Obama supporters can't have it both ways. They can't call it a beauty contest and then say "Hillary got under 50%.. WE WON!"

by falcon4e 2008-01-29 05:56PM | 0 recs
She won

As the night wore on the talking heads realized they could dismiss it less and less.  The fact is FL had record turnout and the playing field was fair.

Fineman admitted on MSNBC just before 11:00 eastern that even some of Obama's monied FL supporters would be among those spending cash to lobby the DNC in coming months to seat FL delegates.

by dpANDREWS 2008-01-29 06:02PM | 0 recs
Re: She won

It's the size of the turnout not the size of her margin that caused the change in tone. It was double last times for godsake in the fourth most populous state in the union. Denying reality becomes impossible at some point.

by ottovbvs 2008-01-29 06:12PM | 0 recs
Re: She won

Denying reality becomes impossible at some point.

Not for Democrats. That's why the ol' boys club loses every Presidential election.

I understand that Dean, Kerry, and Kennedy have called an emergency session of the DNC to consider a motion to not count any votes for female candidates.

In addition, the Obama campaign had doubled their ad buy on CNN. In exchange, CNN has agreed that Thursday's debate will only include male candidates for President.

Welcome to the Democratic Party. The party that runs its elections like a third-world bananna republic without UN election observers.

by hwc 2008-01-29 06:33PM | 0 recs
my bad: could NOT dismiss it less and less

by dpANDREWS 2008-01-29 06:16PM | 0 recs
Mission Accomplished

South Where?

by dpANDREWS 2008-01-29 06:03PM | 0 recs
Obama not ready for general election

The way he handled Michigan, and now the way he is reacting to Florida, really demonstrates to me that Obama does not understand how to win in the general election. Denigrating the voters in two of the largest swing states would just hurt him in the general, he needs to be winning them over now.

by souvarine 2008-01-29 06:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Senator Clinton On MSNBC

Clinton should ask Obama if he supports the disenfranchisement of almost 2 million voters. Obviously he will say no. Then, she should ask him during the debate to pledge that he will seat the MI and FL delegations.

by RJEvans 2008-01-29 06:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Senator Clinton On MSNBC

Then he'll be forced into a Kerry like answer.

by ottovbvs 2008-01-29 06:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Senator Clinton On MSNBC

I don't think that's a useful strategy now that FL is over.  Voters in CA really don't care if Florida has delegates or not.

by Steve M 2008-01-29 06:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Senator Clinton On MSNBC

That's not the point. The point is seating the delegation and trying to get Obama in a corner on the issue.

by RJEvans 2008-01-29 06:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Senator Clinton On MSNBC

Cornering Obama on this issue is BAD for the party. Doing so would prove that she has as little party loyalty as he supposedly does and truthfully I think, or at least hope they both have more party loyalty than that.

by JDF 2008-01-29 06:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Senator Clinton On MSNBC

You want Hillary Clinton to have party loyalty? That's rich.

by hwc 2008-01-29 06:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Senator Clinton On MSNBC

i do agree with you on this one.  there's no point for her to corner him on it.  because at the end of the day, clinton can talk about seating them, but it'll be the dnc and florida dems that have to work it out.  calling issue to this risks keeping the issue in the media when most folks probably care very little about it right other than knowing who won or lost tonight.  it serves her no good.  her momentum wasn't going to come from the delegates, if momentum came from this at all.  it was going to come from simple numbers.

by toonsterwu 2008-01-29 06:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Senator Clinton On MSNBC

This would be a terrible move for her to make in terms of the GE and the party. The only meaningful effect it would have is giving the Republicans a sound bite to use against Obama in November.

by JDF 2008-01-29 06:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Senator Clinton On MSNBC

They've already got him on that if he's the nominee.

by Denny Crane 2008-01-29 08:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Senator Clinton On MSNBC

Jeebus. The Hillbots on this site are laughable.

by rasputin 2008-01-29 06:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Senator Clinton On MSNBC

So if we support Clinton, are dumb Robots?

If the moderator(s) brings it up, she can't be completely overt but she will say what she said tonight (they should be counted) and the eyes of the party will turn to Obama and he will have agree with her.

If Obama says he supports the counting, he will be asked the obvious question: Will you lobby publicly for that? If he says "no" then he is in big trouble, IMO.

by ND1979 2008-01-29 06:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Senator Clinton On MSNBC

WOW. I'm surprised MSNBC decided to interview Hillary at all about her win tonight, even if it was with Chris Matthews.

MSNBC blacked-out incoming Democratic results for most of the night, like it wasn't even happening. Some pundit on there said something along the lines of "this will only seem like an important win for Clinton if the media decides to present it that way". So it seems they allowed their bias to shine by not coving it at all.

by Mr Man 2008-01-29 06:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Senator Clinton On MSNBC

Initially they thought they could dismiss it through low turnout but as everyone else was covering they were forced to as well (they can't afford to lose electoral ratings before super tuesday).

A friend at MSNBC told me they decided to do the interview / carry her speech at the last minute.

by kristoph 2008-01-29 07:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Senator Clinton On MSNBC

A little birdie tells me that MSNBC might have gotten more than a few angry e-mails tonight.

When will these brain dead white frat boys who run these networks figure out that half of the viewers in the United States are women?

by hwc 2008-01-29 08:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Senator Clinton On MSNBC

On the issue of being politically savy Hillary just far suprasses Obama. This was a great move for her. Obama looks kind of like a jerk snubbing her at the state of the Union. Hillary snubs the cable news networks from interviews so that she can go on the next night when her Florida win, not Teddy and not South Carolina, would be the main highlight. She is a brilliant political mind, and that's a good part on why I think we need her in the general to beat McCain.

by Christopher Lib 2008-01-29 07:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Senator Clinton On MSNBC

Did Bill go over the line?  Probably.  As a HRC supporter, I'd be the first to say that.  That said, who brought race up?  It certainly wasn't HRC.  I'd have to dig up the exact quote, but I'm fairly certain that it was Obama that brought up the issue of race and trying to win the black vote.  Again, not trying to say that Bill was right.  I think President Clinton crossed the line in some of his comments.  Still ... from what I recall, the issue of race, the reason it was made an open issue was brought up by Obama.

As for Florida/delegates, I won't get into the whole thing, because certainly, you seem pretty set on your viewpoints.  I will say that, in the end, I doubt it's HRC that decides if they are seated, but rather the Florida Dems.  They'll have to reach out to the DNC, including the Obama supporters down there.  

All I'll say is the same thing I've posted in this thread and elsewhere.  If Obama wins the nomination, I'll congratulate him and be excited to vote for him, and I hope he'll take a moment to thank Hillary for saving the Democrats asses in Florida by simply showing up.  I think too often people forget the psychological impact of small things like that.  Certainly, she probably had her own motivations for showing up, but I do honestly believe that, at the end of the day, her little thing tonight will have helped the nominee, whoever it may be.

by toonsterwu 2008-01-29 10:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Senator Clinton On MSNBC

To answer this, I'm going to take another route.  Rather than slinging stuff, I'll explain why I chose Clinton.  

To be honest, even at this point in the "game", I am still not big on either Democratic favorite.  I wish someone had the intelligence of HRC, the charisma of Obama, and the passion of Edwards.  That said, ideals are ideals for that factor.

For the longest time, I really didn't care.  Largely because I wasn't feeling passionate about any candidate (a year and a half ago, or whenever it was, I was hoping Mark Warner would get in the race).  I was big on Edwards in 04, but for a variety of reasons, I wasn't big on him now.

I think it's a shame that, in this utterly critical election, there isn't a great, ideal candidate for the Democrats.  In retrospect, sometimes greatness takes time to be seen, and I really wonder right now if Jim Webb would've been a better candidate.  But that's neither here nor there.

So why Clinton?  It has very little to do with the past.  It seems like a lot of people are selling Clinton as back to the future.  That's certainly not it for me.  Before that, I want to note that I'm a Democrat first.  If Obama wins, I'm all for it.  I'm attending a thing this weekend (or at least, I hope to) for Obama.  I think both candidates would do the right thing.  Heck, I know a lot of folks on here probably feel like Bush wakes up everyday wanting to screw Democrats.  I don't feel that way,  I don't agree with him, but I don't think his intentions are to screw us.

This election should be about the future.  I think both Obama and HRC would do good things for this country, but this election needs to also be about the Democratic Party.  I know where HRC stands.  She's not John Edwards in terms of the political spectrum, but she isn't the Bush Democrat that some opponents want to make her out to be.  She's run on a progressive plank, arguably, more progressive than Bill ever was.

And that's it in a nutshell.  I think she can shape a progressive agenda.  I think she can help define the progressive movement.  Can Obama?  Perhaps in time, but I have a hard time knowing where he stands right now.  Perhaps that's his "charm", but I want to know that the Democratic Party has a future.  We've been in the wilderness for so long that, to the public, some largely still feel like we are talking about generalities.  I know, a lot of folks felt 2006 was a sign that the Democratic Party had reestablished itself.  I tend to think that was more a repudiation of the status quo.  

I feel like I know what HRC can bring to the table, and I don't think that it is the ideal time to wait and find out where Obama is.  This is an election about the future of, well, the "left".  Certainly, HRC may be riding on Bill's coattails, but if she wins, it may be HRC that effectively leaves a longer, more permanent imprint on future generations, not because of what gender she is, but rather for the policies that she supports.

Governance isn't simply about ideas.  I honestly feel like the blogosphere is often so focused on that.  Ideas are great, but governance, public service should be more than that.  Governance is about listening, about getting things done.

Anyhow, sorry, 3 am wanted to say my piece without actually taking up diary space to the right.  This wasn't meant to slight you, but dunno, felt like responding to your post.

by toonsterwu 2008-01-29 10:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Senator Clinton On MSNBC

Moreso than Obama right now.  I respect both candidates, and I'll support the nominee.  But I think overall, she offers a more progressive plank than Obama.

by toonsterwu 2008-01-29 10:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Senator Clinton On MSNBC

There was no promise to remove names from the ballot.

Removing their names at the last minute was a political/campaign maneuver. Sometimes those work. Sometimes they come back to bite you in the ass. This one may be the latter.

by Step Beyond 2008-01-29 10:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Senator Clinton On MSNBC

Even though the delegates won't count at the moment, I can't see that in the end they won't be seated and counted. They can't leave states like Florida and Michigan out.

Tonight was a major win for Hillary and puts to rest whatever momentum that Obama tried to spin after South Carolina.

After tonight's landslide victory, Hillary is fired up and ready to go from Thursday's debate right into Super Tuesday.

All the polls show Hillary with double digit lead in most of the states in play on February 5th. I think she is going to take most of the delegates and will lead our party right to Denver ready to take on John McCain or whoever those Republicans nominate. Hillary is ready!!

by EightMoreYears 2008-01-29 11:18PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads