The lifeline strategy

Something wild? Watch this video and then think about what Clinton's implying:

Clinton sounds ready to throw down over MI and FL, all the way to the convention. The thing is, she may have an opening to go there.

Consider this, with the FL and MI delegates counted... Now, some of you immediately are wound up with just the thought but spare us from flipping out in the comments. Show me if my math doesn't add up, or if I'm missing something, but don't get worked up.

Including MI & FL, Clinton is only behind in pledged-delegates by 46-56 delegates, which could be halved in Pennsylvania alone. 46 is the number going off of DCW, but 56 is what I got when using the Obama counting of pledged delegates, and adding in the 67 Obama got from FL and the 178 that Clinton got from FL and MI, that results in a 1485-1429 difference of delegates. DCW has a 1473 to 1427 margin. I imagine that 46-56 number gets updated a bit up and down with further final results coming in from the previous contests. It also should be noted that there are, in addition, 55 uncommitted delegates from MI, and 31 delegates still aligned with Edwards.

Obama's got everything going for him right now, he's in position to claim a victory by nearly all the measurements, most importantly the pledged delegate lead and the popular vote. However, he may have left an opening to Clinton by not fully cooperating with Clinton and the DNC to find a way to let MI and FL re-vote. They don't want to chance Clinton winning two more big states, but by not going along with it, they give Clinton a lifeline via her ability to count those states as they stand, and possibly, if Clinton manages to pick up enough pledged delegates, counting the FL and MI results from January, to claim she has the lead in pledged delegates.

The popular vote too, via RCP's numbers, has Clinton lifelines via FL's votes being counted, and less so (argumentatively at least), with MI's. Ironically, that might come down to whether Clinton is really strong in Puerto Rico, as some believe (Obama's online supporters have been touting the support of PR's Gov. but that ain't looking so hot right now). It's possible that 2 million could vote in that primary. On that note, you really have to go check out this nifty interactive counter by Jay Cost.

You are in denial of the potential reality of all that above? OK, then go and read another answer.

Tags: 2008 election (all tags)

Re: The lifeline strategy
Jerome,
Since you understand sampling and polling, could you explain to linfar in the recommended diaries that there is no problem with oversampling and then reweighting a poll? The diarist seems to think there was a conspiracy or something to promulgate badly flawed data.
by politicsmatters 2008-03-27 06:13PM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

Seriously, please.  It's embarrassing that it is sitting on top of the rec list.

by furiousxgeorge 2008-03-27 06:17PM | 0 recs
I know they use that term &quot;Obama-bots&quot;

and its derogatory..

But the way they work it makes me think that they must have some kind of software that they use to get into these blogs and manipulate things like ratings..

And many of the pro-Obama postings seem, I don't know, weird..

I keep having this weird paranoid fantasy that the worst of them are like robots or something similar who are watching the real people, seeing how they react to things, and then trying to parrot them..

Of course, it isnt true.. BUT..

Watch the faux-outrage over this one.. (duck)

by architek 2008-03-27 08:21PM | 0 recs
I know they use that term &quot;Obama-bots&quot;

I think you could use a zen moment...take a deep breath and then let it out slowly.

There is no secret software that Obama supporters are using to manipulate the ratings.  He's just more popular.

by GFORD 2008-03-27 09:34PM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

Bad polls are common, so is re-weighting. I went and looked at that polls numbers yesterday, and the only real problem was that they didn't actually report the findings. I suppose that was inevitable given they seemed to have a pre-ordained conclusion. Denying that Obama was hurt by Wright flies in the face of too many polls to be correct. Lasting damage?  I don't know. National damage?  Maybe not, because there are states where his numbers improved, like California. But rasmussen and susa polls at the state level have showed considerable damage to Obama in 6 different states-- red states and swing states, but not in some others too.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-03-27 06:20PM | 0 recs
The memory of the American public

is around six seconds..

by architek 2008-03-27 08:22PM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

How much damage do you guess that the Bosnia "lie" is going to cost her?

by gil 2008-03-27 08:44PM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

Check this out
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/3/27/ 212716/396

You think HRC is the only misspeaker? LOL

by nellre 2008-03-27 11:12PM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

Let me see if I get this straight. You're accepting Karl Rove's take with absolutely no corroboration from any other source? You're doing this even when all of those claims can be debunked or placed in an appropriate context with some trivial googling.

Let's put this into perspective. There's a reason why the term "rovian" is used to refer to slanderous attack politics. The man used blatant lies to frame a war hero like John Kerry as a traitor and a coward. He eviscerated fellow Republican John McCain by--among other things--painting his adopted daughter as a mixed-race lovechild; this daughter is a rescued Bangladeshi orphan who was in desperate need of medical care. He took Al Gore's decades of Congressional work on Internet development and turned it into a false spin that the media swallowed whole. This spin stuck even after the father of the Internet, Vint Cerf, explained just how critical Gore's role was and that the actual statement (not the misquoted smear) was entirely true.

These are just a few gems from the same Karl Rove that you're quoting as a sole authoritative source. Doesn't that seem a little disturbing to you?

by noop 2008-03-28 09:16AM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

Jerome you fail to realize that RCP even acknowledges that their popular vote total doesn't count Iowa, Maine, Washington State.  So even when you count florida and then add all of these states, Obama is still ahead. Nice try.

by kristannab 2008-03-28 06:44AM | 0 recs
Hillary agrees with Markos

Taka a look at my Kos diary.

by gaf 2008-03-27 07:28PM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

Interesting that it is Hillary and not Obama calling for unity after a nominee is selected.

Maybe she knows something...

by DTaylor 2008-03-27 06:16PM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

like how to have some class?

by zerosumgame 2008-03-27 06:55PM | 0 recs
Obama is making the same mistake Gore made

Obama is making the same mistake Gore made in 2000

by architek 2008-03-27 08:28PM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

"Interesting that it is Hillary and not Obama calling for unity after a nominee is selected.

Maybe she knows something..."

....like her negatives are going through the roof.
or
....like she doesn't have a realistic chance.

by Kobi 2008-03-27 07:11PM | 0 recs
Look at that video again..

I think that Hillary is a winner and our candidate..

She can stand up to all they got, and they got a LOT.

She's our gal...

by architek 2008-03-27 08:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Look at that video again..

That's sweet.

by Kobi 2008-03-27 10:19PM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

Except he is...

""There are going to be some bruised feelings, whoever the nominee is. We are going to have to come together and remind ourselves that there is a heck of a lot bigger difference between either Senator Clinton or myself, and John McCain," Obama said.

He said the protracted contest would not harm the party in the long run.

"I think short term, there is going to be work to do for the nominee to bring the party back together again. People feel pretty passionate about their respective candidates. I appreciate that, and I understand it," Obama said."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires 20080327/democrats-party-unity

by leshrac55 2008-03-27 09:27PM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy
We are bruising each other big time, and it has nothing to do with the campaigns of either candidate. It's the blogs.
I am an old woman, and I have never seen anything like this. The extremely bias and hateful (and untruthful) post found about on the "progressive" blogosphere make some of us look a lot like Limbaugh. I thought we were better than that.
by nellre 2008-03-27 11:19PM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

Is the quote inaccurate?  Was it reported by Huffpo improperly?  Did they make it up?

No... they didn't.  It's just something over the AP wire that I picked up from Huffpo.  Just because it's a source you don't like doesn't make it false.

by leshrac55 2008-03-28 07:08AM | 0 recs
I still can't see Gore

For all the complaints folks have on the HRC and the supers, I'm just not sure I can see enough of them gathering up the gumption to force this hand.  But that's me, and only time (about a month) or so will clarify that picture).

by toonsterwu 2008-03-27 06:19PM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

So the answer, from the crowd that has been harping on the importance of not disenfranchising people...is to count primary elections that were not contested.

Yeah...sorry for flipping out in the comments, but you are joking, right?

by furiousxgeorge 2008-03-27 06:19PM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

I wish that the candidates would have blown off the DNC to begin with-- that's what I advocated for last August.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-03-27 06:22PM | 0 recs
Things looked different then,

but there were a lot of us Hillary supporters who at the time believed it was a bad deal.  Tigercourse at daily kos is as committed a Hillary supporter as there is, and he was absolutely livid that Hillary signed on to the deal.

by Beltway Dem 2008-03-27 06:26PM | 0 recs
I wish they had blown them off too

But they didn't.  Again, you aren't seriously suggesting they count those elections, are you?

by furiousxgeorge 2008-03-27 06:29PM | 0 recs
Re: I wish they had blown them off too

I leaned heavily for it before, then against it, and now with Obama blocking the re-voting, I'm inclined to support their seating as is again if they don't get a re-vote. Obama took his gamble by pulling off the ballot and then blocking the re-votes, you can't hold it against Clinton for placing her bet too.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-03-27 06:35PM | 0 recs
Re: I wish they had blown them off too

He didn't block it, even if he advocated against them, it wasn't in his power to make the final decision.

Regardless, it makes no sense to punish Obama when the results of such a move are more far reaching.  It punishes the states who followed the rules and didn't move their dates forward, it punishes the voters in MI and FL who would have voted differently, it punishes the rest of the country by messing with the results of their election with an invalid uncontested vote.

You look at the big picture, and you realize it just isn't something you can do.  It isn't a game of football where we give Hillary a 15 yard advance because Obama did something wrong, the ramifications are real and far reaching.

by furiousxgeorge 2008-03-27 06:41PM | 0 recs
Re: I wish they had blown them off too

Won't Obama control the credentials committee by convention time?  I think this is in the league of wishful thinking.

by ArkansasLib 2008-03-27 06:46PM | 0 recs
Re: I wish they had blown them off too

Obama miscalculated by taking himself off the MI ballot just as Hilary miscalculated by not putting more effort into caucuses.

Hilary has paid a price for her miscalculation and Obama may pay a price for his.

The fact that Hilary is willing to have a re-vote in MI, even though she'll do worse since Obama will get more votes than zero, is to her credit.

by FireLight 2008-03-27 06:55PM | 0 recs
Re: I wish they had blown them off too

It's only to her credit if one thinks that there's any serious chance that a credentials committee would seat Michigan as-is.

Seating an election in which 45% of the voters were denied a chance to vote for a candidate of their choice is just plain undemocratic. And it doesn't matter if Obama took his name off intentionally (as he and all the others pledged to do -- "not participate", remember?) -- this is supposed to be about the voters. The voters didn't take his name off the ballot. They're disenfranchised.

On the other hand, a compromise delegation with the 45% uncommitted turned into Obama delegates, and possibly seated with the original DNC 50%-vote penalty? That might well fly. I wouldn't be surprised to see it happen.

by Texas Gray Wolf 2008-03-27 07:50PM | 0 recs
Re: I wish they had blown them off too

It would have been to her credit if she had been for it from the start, but coming out strongly for counting the invalid election was a hindrance to developing support for a valid election, not a support for it. Eventually, she switched around to supporting a new election, but it would have helped if she had started out in favor of that, rather than trying the "Oh, the invalid election that I won should count" line of attack first.

by alephnul 2008-03-27 09:15PM | 0 recs
Convention floor fight would be disaster

now with Obama blocking the re-voting, I'm inclined to support their seating as is again if they don't get a re-vote.

What you and Hillary are really calling for is a floor fight at the convention on a motion to overturn the majority of the credentials committee.  This is a prescription for turning the convention into a bitter public fight a few months before the election.  It sounds more like suicide terrorism than some sort of election strategy.

And this line that Obama somehow "blocked" a revote that was never even advanced by either state is just a way to blame the planned fratricidal floor fight on Obama.

To me it sounds like the prelude to a Hillary '12 strategy to make McCain a one-term president.

by Fred in Vermont 2008-03-27 06:59PM | 0 recs
Let's remember what we are talking about

Obama has the tiniest lead in delegates.  You probably remember Rube Goldberg.  That is how Obama got this lead, with the craziest events happening.  If there were no caucuses, Hillary would definitely been ahead now.  If Howard Dean didn't try to remove two Hillary states from the primary season, Hillary would be winning by now or it would be a lot closer.  These are all disenfranchisements that Obama needed to get this tiny lead.

Obama doesn't win the big states and if Hillary beat Obama in Ohio, McCain would too. Add another thing to the Rube Goldberg model, that the primaries were distorted as compared to the general election because the percentage of blacks and students are as high in the primaries as they would be in the GE. However, the non-blacks and non students who will vote in overwhelmingly larger percentages in the general election, especially in states where there were caucuses.

That is just the numbers and with Obama being the one who prevented Florida and Michigan residents to have their both candidates, he is toast and the super-delegates better wake the hell up and know that.

I seriously dislike Obama's tactics and I rather see a drag out floor fight in August than see Obama the candidate.

by cpa1a 2008-03-27 07:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Let's remember what we are talking about

Clinton blocked revotes for six weeks. Her stance that the original elections counted blocked revote work during the time that something could have been done.

Obama "blocked" revotes for two. Blocked is in quotes because

1. He agreed to revotes and had no power to block them
2. Revotes were in fact blocked by Michigan Republicans, who blamed Obama as a way of furthering the Democratic party feud
3. There was never any serious revote proposal for Florida that would work; no one blocked it, because nothing workable never materialized.
4. The Michigan revote plan that was blocked by the Republicans would never have worked anyway, because the means to implement it were the voter lists from the first primary, and the law allowing those to be provided has been struck down.

So in the absolute worst case, if you deny all of 1-4 (and that's really hard to do, since they're all true), Obama blocked revotes for 1/3 the time Clinton did, and on top of that it was the least important 2 weeks out of the 8, since the one thing revotes needed was time to get things to come together.

by Texas Gray Wolf 2008-03-27 07:54PM | 0 recs
Re: I wish they had blown them off too

Care to bet on if they get seated as is?  Because I'll tell you now... 100% no chance in hell that will happen.  They will get seated, but MI will NOT get seated as is.

by yitbos96bb 2008-03-27 07:00PM | 0 recs
Re: I wish they had blown them off too

Florida most likely at the original DNC 50%-voting-strength, no-SD penalty, if there's the slightest doubt as to the nominee.

Michigan, possibly, as a compromise delegation, the uncommitteds turned into Obama delegates, original DNC penalty. Alternately, 50/50 split.

by Texas Gray Wolf 2008-03-27 07:56PM | 0 recs
Re: I wish they had blown them off too

I leaned heavily for it before, then against it, and now with Obama blocking the re-voting

We've heard this from lots of people without any kind of evidence being presented.

But finally someone with credibility is saying it -- someone who can and will back it up?

(Holding my breath here.)

by Kobi 2008-03-27 07:17PM | 0 recs
Re: I wish they had blown them off too

Marc Ambinder covered it, go and read his reporting.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-03-27 07:38PM | 0 recs
Re: I wish they had blown them off too

The same Ambinder that just runs rightwing viral videos embedded right into his page? Yeah, I'll trust him.

by brimur 2008-03-27 08:27PM | 0 recs
Re: I wish they had blown them off too

That isn't an answer worthy of you.

by Kobi 2008-03-27 10:24PM | 0 recs
Re: I wish they had blown them off too

Tell you what - I'll grant you your numbers if you'll grant me two things.

First, the numbers depend on Democrats recognizing the results of the MI and FL contests.

and

Second, they depend on awarding Barack Obama zero delegates in Michigan.

Unless Obama is caught with a live boy or a dead girl, there is zero chance that a majority of the Democratic party (or its supers) would go for that result.  Not a chance.

You're trying to change the rules halfway through the game.

by TL 2008-03-27 08:00PM | 0 recs
Re: I wish they had blown them off too

Give me a good reason why Obama would block a revote.  It's a virtual tie in the polling and if he went in an campaigned he'd probably win it.  So what is his sinister motive?

by GFORD 2008-03-27 09:37PM | 0 recs
Re: I wish they had blown them off too

he might probably win the delegate count if he remained within 5 points of Hillary in MI. Seeing that many detroit city precincts would come in huge for him.

by alex100 2008-03-28 10:48AM | 0 recs
Hillary's gamble.

Hillary's gamble was (through Harold Ickes) decertifying Michigan.  She isn't innocent in this at all.

I like the non-judgmental way this is rephrased in terms of gambles.  Hillary took a gamble that she could decertify the Michigan election, but leave her name on it, and then claim victory afterwards as if she hadn't moved to decertify it.

Let's see.  This is like the following:

War Admiral and Sea Biscuit have a race on Tuesday, but War Admiral tells Sea Biscuit, "The race is off, dude."

But War Admiral still shows up on Tuesday, runs all by himself on an empty racetrack, and claims victory.  When other people point out that this isn't really a race, War Admiral says, "I made my gamble, and Sea Biscuit made his."

As if that makes any sense at all.

by Dumbo 2008-03-28 12:24AM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

am i missing something? are you in your piece counting Michigan as 81 delegates for Hillary and 0 for Obama as per the beauty contest results? even you must admit THAT will never pass, lol its simply not fair and would never pass the smell test anywhere. The best that is going to happen for Michigan is 50/50 how is it fair to count the current Michigan beauty contest with Obama getting no delegates from there? really?

As for Florida i'm pretty sure i saw a report today about the Obama campaign talking to the Florida democratic team to try and work out a solution and that in-fact the HRC camp hadn't yet responded to those discussions.

The only way FL and Michigan gets seated is FL get "punished" by losing half their delegates same as what happened on the republican side, and Michigan being split 50/50.

FL and Michigan broke the rules, there is no way most of the country will accept for their delegations to be seated as is no matter what the HRC campaign of the supporters do. Since the re-do's are dead and the BO camp will have a say in the credentials committee, the only way is a fair settlement.

i also suspect by the time Indiana votes if BO is ahead in delegates and popular votes he'll come up and say MI and FL get seated as is. I also suspect by that time most of the super delegates will have come out to make their choices so we should have a pretty clear picture on who's the nominee.

But to suggest that HRC will go to the convention to fight to get MI and FL seated AS IS to give her a victory won't happen. The supers won't let such a fight at the convention happen all this is going to work out by early June i suspect they won't risk a split democratic party because that's a sure way for McCain winning. That's one thing both sides and the democratic party does not want to see happen regardless of who you support.

by jax8 2008-03-27 06:50PM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

Hillary won 55% of the votes in MI. To split the delegates 50/50 is to take 5% from her. This is called 'vote theft'. Any candidate that does so, destroys the legitimacy of the nomination.

by DaleA 2008-03-27 07:00PM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

Ladies and gentlemen -- look! A perfect circle!

by Lettuce 2008-03-27 07:08PM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

The fact that Obama's name wasn't on the ballot doesn't bother you at all? Do you really believe that out of the 55%, at least 5% wouldn't have voted for Barack if he was  on the ballot?
The point is, we will never know. Edwards was in teh race as well. Maybe if his name was on the ballot, then he would have drawn votes from Hillary as well.

Do you see how invalid the entire primary is when everybody's name is not on the ballot?

I'm not even going to start with how MI demographics favor Obama, and how people stayed home because his name wasn't on the ballot.....

by xodus1914 2008-03-27 07:23PM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

Fine, 55/45... That will net her a couple more delegates.. it still isn't going to change anything...

by LordMike 2008-03-27 07:32PM | 0 recs
I love Hillary the Fighter

She is willing to fight for the rights of fellow Citizens in Florida and Michigan. I believe she will fight for my rights too. I love someone who isn't afraid to do what is right.

The disenfranchisement of Florida  in 2008 would be much worse than the Republican Disenfranchisement in 2000. The DNC rules are much slighter and make less sense than the Supreme Court and Katherine Harris.  1.7 million votes in Florida tossed out. Incredible that anyone can suggest that in America. The Omamaniacs have learned a lot from Rove and W. They are worse.

And they disenfranchise one of the Gayest States in the Union and make the least Gay state, Iowa, #1. Iowa is 50th out of 50 States in Gay percentage of the Population. I don't know who these Obamaniacs in the middle of the country are, but he is not winning the big Blue States that are full of a rich diversity of different types of people.

http://www.gaydemographics.org/USA/state s/iowa/2000Census_state_ia.htm

by maxstar 2008-03-27 06:21PM | 0 recs
Re: I love Hillary the Fighter

Yes, she is, when it's in her self-interest to do so.  Otherwise, not so much.

by rfahey22 2008-03-27 06:25PM | 0 recs
The votes of the Citizens of Florida don't belong

The votes of the Citizens of Florida don't belong to Obama or Clinton or Gore or Bush--they belong to the Citizens of Florida. We are a free people in the United States, we should remember what it means to be Americans.

by maxstar 2008-03-27 06:45PM | 0 recs
Re: The votes of the Citizens of Florida don't bel

"The votes of the Citizens of Florida don't belong to Obama or Clinton or Gore or Bush--they belong to the Citizens of Florida. We are a free people in the United States, we should remember what it means to be Americans."

Before you start clearing your throat to sing "God Bless America," it should probably be pointed out that all FL and MI had to do was follow the rules like everybody else and there would be no problem counting their votes.  The rules were clearly explained.  Both FL and MI were told that they would lose all delegates if they didn't follow them.  And they were told this months -- MONTHS -- before the elections.  Where was all the patriotic spirit then?  Why didn't they comply when they still could?

They didn't budge.  Because they thought they were too good to be told what to do by the DNC.  The figured that because they were big states, that they would simply "big time" the DNC and force their will on the rest of us.  Well, they were wrong.  And its not the DNC's fault.  And its certainly not Obama's.

In fact, most of the politicians crying the loudest in MI and FL are the primary culprits.  You want somebody to blame, blame them.

by davey jones 2008-03-27 06:57PM | 0 recs
Re: The votes of the Citizens of Florida don't bel
Actually, the rules stated they would lose half their delegates and all of their supers.
The rules allow for further sanctions if necessary, but some DNC members wanted to make an "example" of these states to prevent further chaos, never thinking how important they would be in the primaries.
Stupid move on the part of the DNC, because they failed to control the first four states from moving their primaries and other states were punished for doing the same thing.
by skohayes 2008-03-28 02:50AM | 0 recs
Re: The votes of the Citizens of Florida

I never said otherwise, though thank you for putting words into my mouth.  My point is that Clinton is all about "enfranchisement" precisely because it serves her political self-interest, just as she was initially against "enfranchisement" back in January because that position suited her self-interest back then.  Just as having Ickes on her campaign staff continues to serve her political self-interest, even though he did more to "disenfranchise" those two states than either Clinton or Obama.  She's seizing a political opportunity, not getting religion about the importance of "enfranchisement."

by rfahey22 2008-03-27 06:58PM | 0 recs
you know she

only started doing that Feb 12th.

Before there was not a peep out of her.

I really wish people stop pretending its not about politics.

by kindthoughts 2008-03-27 06:34PM | 0 recs
Re: you know she

More like March 12. She spent all of February claiming the original delegations should be seated, which is just calling for a different type of disenfranchisement.

by Texas Gray Wolf 2008-03-27 07:59PM | 0 recs
I love her spunk

You go, Hillary!  Seat the Florida and Michigan delegations!

by Beltway Dem 2008-03-27 06:22PM | 0 recs
Re: I love her spunk

Absolutely, you gotta love her spunk..

The gloves are coming off.

What is politics without some guts and arm-to-arm combat?

I am pumped .. enough of this MSM-surrogates fighting the battle for Obama. Let's see what he is made of. Frankly, better now than when he faces the Republicans.

by loser 2008-03-27 06:35PM | 0 recs
Re: I love her spunk

Go Hillary, destroy the party, elect McCain!

Rah! Rah!

by alephnul 2008-03-27 09:19PM | 0 recs
Re: I love her spunk

There is absolutely nothing wrong with fighting.  I wish Al Gore felt the same way in 2000, or Kerry in 2004.  I absolutely do not agree that the party will be destroyed.  Enough with the hyperbole.  It's so childish.  Let's fight this out and stop being so polite.  That's the real reason democrats haven't been winning.  What milquetoasts(sp?).

by moonheart 2008-03-28 03:47AM | 0 recs
Re: I love her spunk

Well, at the end of that segment, she is basically saying that she will force the party to choose between her and crippling damage going into the general election.

Fighting hard against your opponents (as we all wish Kerrey and Gore had done) is one thing. Attacking your own party if it doesn't choose you is another thing entirely. Pushing a floor fight at the convention is the second thing, not the first.

by alephnul 2008-03-29 12:48PM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

Go Hillary, Go.

Go Hillary, Go.

See you at the convention!!!!!!!!

by loser 2008-03-27 06:22PM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

And the award for most apt alias goes to . . .

by BITNPB 2008-03-27 08:08PM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

he he he..

Ever lived in Chicago and followed the Cubs? :)

by loser 2008-03-27 10:21PM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

These scenarios are getting awfully convoluted.  The number of steps required make it very unlikely.  Plus, one would have to consider what the effect of a completely fractured party as late as August is going to accomplish.  If that were to happen, it would almost require a joint ticket to heal everybody's feelings in time to have any hope of defeating McCain.

by rfahey22 2008-03-27 06:23PM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

Well I've always been for Clintoon/Obama.

still am.

unless Hillary loses in Pa, its the only solution.

by John Wesley Hardin was a Friend to the Poor 2008-03-27 06:34PM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

You want a guy you've savaged as unqualified to be president and unelectable to be VP?  Interesting, since the first requirement for any VP is their ability to take over the presidency at a moments notice.

by HSTruman 2008-03-27 06:43PM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

Yeah, that's something I don't understand.  Our friend here was fond of posting a sinking ship with "Obama" plastered across it, but now we're to understand that a joint ticket would be totally awesome?  There's either a very high level of disingenuousness on display on this website or a cynical ploy for the votes that a joint ticket would bring.

by rfahey22 2008-03-27 07:01PM | 0 recs
I hate his campaign, know he CANT win

but Ive always been for Clinton/Obama.

ask my buddy Luke in Obamaland.

by John Wesley Hardin was a Friend to the Poor 2008-03-27 07:17PM | 0 recs
I hate his campaign, know he CANT win

but Ive always been for Clinton/Obama.

ask my buddy Luke in Obamaland.

by John Wesley Hardin was a Friend to the Poor 2008-03-27 07:17PM | 0 recs
he is unelectable at the top of the ticket

The guy was a state asssemblyman a couple of years ago, he sure as hell hasnt proved to me or anybody i know who has been around the WH that he's ready to be Prez.

but, with some time in office, he may show he REALLY has the stuff.

but that moments notice bit is hype. All hype.

by John Wesley Hardin was a Friend to the Poor 2008-03-27 07:04PM | 0 recs
Re: he is unelectable at the top of the ticket

The Bosnia lies make Clinton unelectable. No other politician this season has made a mind-blowing mistake like that.

It's a ridiculous assumption anyway, that the likely nominee would agree to the VP slot.

by mcgish 2008-03-27 07:11PM | 0 recs
Re: he is unelectable at the top of the ticket

you guys dont even know media hype from actual big deals.

hill didnt lose one vote over this.  not one.

newsflash! people and politicans exagerate.

OH NO! CALL A PRIEST!

Hell, Obamas lied  a slew of times so far in this race, big deal.

whats shocking is one dem's campaign callng another dem a liar in the media.

only one other dem has ever done that before this.

by John Wesley Hardin was a Friend to the Poor 2008-03-27 07:26PM | 0 recs
Re: he is unelectable at the top of the ticket

That's really not a consistent argument. I know the VP slot in the past has been treated like it was training wheels, or at least that is the perception in some quarters. The problem is that's just not a responsible position to advocate for. The VP should be just as ready as the President from the first day in office. That's one position I don't think it's wise to gamble with however politically appealing you might think the option.

Either Obama is suited for one office and therefore both or not.

by tessellated 2008-03-27 07:42PM | 0 recs
Re: he is unelectable at the top of the ticket

hey guess what?

I dont accept, nor am I impressed with that obama wicked lil word trap.

the cable media bought it, but ive worked and fought with those folks and think theyre basically half witted, well tanned idiots.

im talking real here. its clinton/obama or le deluge.

by John Wesley Hardin was a Friend to the Poor 2008-03-27 08:52PM | 0 recs
Re: he is unelectable at the top of the ticket

It's not a word trap, and it's irrelevant what the media thinks.

The point is the VP is one heartbeat away from the presidency and if you don't think the VP is good enough to be president how do you justify putting that person in the VP slot to begin with?

I suppose you are looking at the problem as purely one of political calculation and that is your justification. Ok, fine, I am just not sure why it's ok to do a political calculation with the VP slot and not with the top of the ticket as well. You might point out that the chance of something going wrong and needing the VP to step up is small, but I don't think that's an appropriate risk to take. Just my opinion.

I'm also not sure I buy the line that a unity ticket is necessary to avert disaster. It might turn out to be the case, but it's still early.

by tessellated 2008-03-27 09:14PM | 0 recs
Re: he is unelectable at the top of the ticket

without the media obama would be planing his run for gov.

its a word trap, nothing more.

but guess what?  you arent the media, im annonymous, I dont have to pretend.

You can, do as you wish.

Its got to be both or Gore.

Id love it to be al, but that aint happening.

and I worked for the clinons persoally, trust this,  its not gonna be barry/hillary, be sure of that....

so...

he amazg thimg is that hill/bo is A GREAT PLACE  for obama, better than if he were 1...

but id and ego... id and ego...

by John Wesley Hardin was a Friend to the Poor 2008-03-27 09:47PM | 0 recs
Re: he is unelectable at the top of the ticket

Do you really think for one minute that VP's are chosen for their readiness to take over on minute 1?  I believe they are chosen for the votes they can bring.  I've seen Richardson posited many times with the cynical reason to bring in the latinos.  Most of the time a VP is chosen to round out a weakness of the presidential nominee.  Come on give me a break!

In the case of a unity ticket, it serves the purpose of giving Obama the time to gain the actual experience needed, and brings the party together.  Just think of the overwhelming traditional democratic support of HRC married to the new and super enthusiastic democrats that BO would bring to the ticket.  Come on, you can't say that isn't really attractive.

That's an absolute winner for the Democratic Party and the American people.

by moonheart 2008-03-28 03:55AM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy
Who said Obama does not have the potential.. he has. It is just that he needs good apprenticeship under Hillary.
BTW, Hillary is not going to die soon.. Reagan lived till mid-80s and women live longer than men :)
by loser 2008-03-27 07:06PM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

LOL....Barack Obama doesn't need ANYTHING from Hillary. What's she going to do, teach him how to run a campaign? Underestimate your political opponent?
I got it. She'll teach him how to not compete in all 50 states, along with picking inept advisers.

There is a reason why he outplayed, outwitted and outlasted her, people. Don't minimize his accomplishments by perpetuating this fairy tale about him being her veep so he can be mentored by her. Or him picking her up as veep so she can be the brains of the outfit.

I will vote for Hillary Clinton if she steals the nomination only because John MCCain is a freaking idiot.
But do not for one minute think that she was the best (or even second best)  foreign policy wonk, security wonk, experience wonK in the field. Her credentials were never competitive against most of the other SERIOUS Democratic candidates except for Obama and Edwards.  That's why the whole 'Ready from Day one' is nonsense because it wouldn't have flown against the likes of Dodd and Richardson, and McCain will laugh in her face if she tries it.
Hillary never had the vision to come up with a campaign strategy that would win her both the primary and give a her a shot in the GE.
Obama's message of vision and change, contrasted nicely against the other candidates (with the possible exception of Edwards) and can only pick up steam in November against a candidate who is going to be bringing more of the same.
I contend that Barack may be able to teach Hillary a thing or two.

by xodus1914 2008-03-27 07:40PM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

Actually, I think it contrasted nicely against Edwards theme of righteous anger and change.

Personally, I liked righteous anger and change better, but I can understand why others liked hope and change better.

But yes, Clinton's experience theme was pretty dubious up against Richardson or even Dodd or Biden, and she's already admitted that it would be completely useless against McCain.

by alephnul 2008-03-27 09:34PM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

It's also a strategy in which she still doesn't have the votes, particularly if you consider that the uncommitted delegates in Michigan are the anyone but Clinton delegates. Once you put the 55 uncommitteds in the Obama count then, even with MI and FL, Obama leads by around 100 pledged delegates. While Clinton may make up 20 delegates in PA, she will lose them back in IN, NC, and OR, so she'll make it into the convention down by 150 or so and then she'll have a brutal floor fight so that she can overturn the seating committee's recommendation, all so that she can push down her deficit to 100 delegates, and then the super delegates will be so happy with the humiliation she has put the party through on live television that they will swing overwhelmingly to her (even though she has only been able to score a handful of super delegates in the past several, and many super delegates have started speaking out against her party damaging tactics), thus giving her the nomination?

Somehow, that doesn't sound like a sane strategy or a viable strategy, but I guess it is the only raft of hope she has left to hold onto, particularly since her shameful last ditch attempt to race bait Obama over Wright seems to have been treated as the shameless ploy it was.

by alephnul 2008-03-27 09:28PM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

Listening to the two campaigns it's almost like they're talking about two entirely different topics.

Obama: "Rules are rules!"
Clinton: "Democracy now! Credentials fight later!"

They're two entirely different arguments. I think this whole thing will be a lot closer than anyone expects at the beginning of June, and then we'll see what happens. Clinton going down without MI & FL though, that will bitterize a lot of people, especially in Florida.

by VAAlex 2008-03-27 06:23PM | 0 recs
erm

Seating Michigan as it is now, would be BLATANTLY unfair.

by kindthoughts 2008-03-27 06:27PM | 0 recs
Re: erm

Nno it wouldn't be at all unfair.

Obama gave up on that state and decided not to put his name on the ballot.

That was his choice.

Choices have consequences.

Obama needs to be accountable for his choices.

The citizens need not be punished for a choice he and he alone made.

by Caliman 2008-03-27 07:03PM | 0 recs
wow

thats like a stream of non-sense.

Obama pulled his name along with Edwards because of the pledge he made.

Hillary by not pulling hers has violated the pledge in spirit if not in letter.

by kindthoughts 2008-03-27 07:07PM | 0 recs
bs myth

by John Wesley Hardin was a Friend to the Poor 2008-03-27 07:33PM | 0 recs
bs myth

by John Wesley Hardin was a Friend to the Poor 2008-03-27 07:33PM | 0 recs
Re: wow

I love how the only reply to this is "BS Myth", repeated twice, with absolutely no justification given at all.

The candidates signed a plenty to "not participate" in the Florida or Michigan primaries. It was too late for anyone's name to be removed from Florida, but not Michigan.

I'd love to hear an argument as to how having one's name on the ballot is "not participating", just for the sheer fun of watching language get tortured that far.

In any case, the entire thing is absurd. This is supposed to be about the voters, remember? Enfranchisement is a voter right, not a campaign right.

45% of Michigan's voters did not have an opportunity to vote for the candidate of their choice. That they trudged to the polls to say they were denied that right is quite a statement in itself.

Those voters were disenfranchised. Seating them is seating the results of a blatantly undemocratic election.

Seating them will not reenfranchise nearly half the state of Michigan. In fact, all it'll do is say that, in America, it's just fine for us to say that your vote only counts if you vote for the "right" person. Not only that, but if you vote for the "wrong" person, we'll just go ahead and award the delegates that should've resulted from your vote to the "right" person anyway. If you don't like the "right" person, your vote is meaningless.

Does anyone want that to be a standard upon which the Democratic party is based?

by Texas Gray Wolf 2008-03-27 08:10PM | 0 recs
Re: wow

Obama made a choice to take his name off the ballot.

Choices have consequences.

Obama should man up and face the consequences of this choice.

Just because he made a bad choice is no reason to punish the voters of Michigan who voted on election day.

by Caliman 2008-03-27 08:57PM | 0 recs
redux

by kindthoughts 2008-03-28 12:03AM | 0 recs
Re: wow

The pledge he made did not say to strip his name from the ballot. He did so because he was afraid of upsetting New Hampshire. That was his call to make. The uncommitted delegates can all go to him for all we know.

by bowiegeek 2008-03-29 03:32PM | 0 recs
Re: erm

Umm, you do realize that he was following the rules, right?
People should be penalized for following the rules?

WOW.

by xodus1914 2008-03-27 07:43PM | 0 recs
Re: erm

If "choices have consequences" what's the consequence of Hillary's pledge supposedly not to participate in the Michigan primary?

Other than her being revealed as an unashamed liar, I mean.

by Aris Katsaris 2008-03-28 03:26AM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

I agree not revoting MI and FLA gives HRC the path to get the SDs at the convention, BO will have shown he cannot win the base Dems in big blue states if he cant get PA and shutting out FLA and Mi makes his nomination look illegitimate in the eyes of HRC supporters who feel the party leaders have had this thing framed this way since Aug 07 when Brazil and the rules cmte cut FLA and MI out...

by ginaswo 2008-03-27 06:28PM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

I THOUGHT THE DUMBEST THING THE OBAMAS COULD DO WOULD BE TO STOP THE REVOTES,CAUSE THEN WE'D END UP WITH MORE DELEGATES, MAYBE ALL.

I KNOW HILLARY PRETTY WELL, LOTS BETTER THAN A DODD, THESE FOLKS DONT KNOW OR UNDERSTAND DOROTHY'S DAUGHTER ONE BIT...

SHE'S TAKING THIS TO DENVER, NO ON WILL STOP HER OR US.

THIS IS HUGE NEWS.

(oops caps.  btw, doing this with Greta shows how special this statement was.  good eye Jerome!)

by John Wesley Hardin was a Friend to the Poor 2008-03-27 06:29PM | 0 recs
well thank you

for you CAPITALIZED rant.

by kindthoughts 2008-03-27 06:35PM | 0 recs
DIDYA MISS THE

oops caps?

by John Wesley Hardin was a Friend to the Poor 2008-03-27 06:41PM | 0 recs
no

maybe you should have retyped it instead of apologizing cause that kinda weird.

by kindthoughts 2008-03-27 07:05PM | 0 recs
Re: no

why?

you people look to insult others over ANYTHING!

{caps on purpose)

by John Wesley Hardin was a Friend to the Poor 2008-03-27 07:40PM | 0 recs
Re: no

why?

you people look to insult others over ANYTHING!

{caps on purpose)

by John Wesley Hardin was a Friend to the Poor 2008-03-27 07:41PM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

it really isn't huge news. Really.

by alex100 2008-03-27 06:38PM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

Sorry if you don't see what she's an announcing.

I guess the geniuses on MSNBC are still talking about how important Sinbad and Bosnia are.

Jerome got it, I bet Axelrod does too.

I expect a further fury of Hillary get outs.

But that AHD. (aint happenin'dude)

Im very glad there will be no revoting.

Now no one can say she didnt try.....

by John Wesley Hardin was a Friend to the Poor 2008-03-27 06:50PM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

you and other Hillary supporters can make all the noise in the world regarding this topic and you might have limited success. But if you believe the numbers Jerome is tabulating in his post are accurate, assuming Hillary get's her way, then you're severely mistaken.

by alex100 2008-03-27 07:26PM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

you just dont even get it at all.

Hillary went to Greta to announce how her role in this will ALL PLAY OUT, but you Obamaites are believing for what - will this be the 5th time now(?) that somehow hillary will be forced out of this race.

She just announced she's going to denver and she will demand and fight to seat mi and fl.

and you think this is minor thing?

I know her, you only think you do.

She's not leaving this race.  Bet on it.
If you had sense, youd even bet on her.

by John Wesley Hardin was a Friend to the Poor 2008-03-27 07:55PM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

okay. I hear what you're saying. I understand what you believe.

I believe this thinking is wrong. it is a minor thing. regardless if these states get seated, it won't do anything to get her all that much closer.

by alex100 2008-03-27 08:06PM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

my god, watch the vid again.

se has the right to argue in front of rules.

her supporters will back her.

she cant be pushed out before then.

if she wins pa, ky, wv, pr etc...and in commitee, she'll be ahead even without the supers.

obama blundered huge in stopping revotes in fl and mi.

huge.

by John Wesley Hardin was a Friend to the Poor 2008-03-27 08:14PM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

she has the right to argue but she won't control the credentials committee. Obama will. Therefore, while FL might get seated at 1/2 strength, Michigan will be split in half. Each candidate getting their fair split.

and her supporters (the DLC corporateCons) have been backing her these past few days and weeks and months. This isn't exactly brand new news (as you may think).

and no, she can't be ahead without supers if she wins PA, KY, WV and PR. That would be an absolute impossibility. If you truly believe that you're in for a huge let down.

insanely insignificant. Unless you think such desperation is attractive, it's actually quite sad.

by alex100 2008-03-27 08:47PM | 0 recs

oh kossack lingo...

13,000,000 DLC corporateCons.  really?

(where do you people come up with this paranoid stuff? is it all kos krap?)

Obama will control the credentials committee. really?

(where do you people come up with this secret info? is that kos krap or msnbc krap?)

Ive been to 5 conventions, had roles in 3, how about you?

That committee is far from set and NEVER will be predictable.  Now that obama stopped the revotes, and bit the apple of naked self interest and so thrown himself out of the garden, anything can happen there.

Bill Clinton will then gladhand every single one on the committee.

Ive seen more famous people melt in the Prez's presence than you can imagine...and it will be obama who shut down he process,is the bad guy not Hillary.

Jerome got how huge this is, you didnt.

Then with MI AND FL seated
and PA, KY, WV and PR etc...

and the supers wont have to overturn a delegate lead.  Cause Hill will be ahead. nce n roig n the street.

obam gets the VP, everybodys happy.

Except you.

by John Wesley Hardin was a Friend to the Poor 2008-03-27 09:21PM | 0 recs

bookmarked and saved. just as a reminder in case you ever would like it.

it's been a tough primary for some of you Hillary folk. Not many high moments so I can understand you thinking this might go somewhere.

by alex100 2008-03-27 10:09PM | 0 recs

Ive been fighting the media full time since 92.  this is no different.

Obama and fan boys like you have just joined them in this long war.

We will fight and prevail and win again.

there wil be blood.

by John Wesley Hardin was a Friend to the Poor 2008-03-28 07:43AM | 0 recs

okay buddy. keep this stuff coming. it's utterly hilarious in a right-wing sort of way.

four, one sentence paragraphs with the following four words that do nothing but make me giggle.
"fight. war. fight. blood."

by alex100 2008-03-28 10:36AM | 0 recs

right wing?!

I work for a labor union you twit!

by John Wesley Hardin was a Friend to the Poor 2008-03-28 11:17PM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

I don't believe she will be forced out of the race.  I believe that, like Huckabee, she will stay in until Obama crosses the threshold...in June.  I don't think the party and the superdelegates will make their move until after the last legitimate primary is over.

Dean has said it himself that he will not let this go on until August...two months of dead time when the nominee could be fighting McCain?  Dean says no, it will be worked out before then.

Once Obama is over the top, Clinton will bow out and urge her supporters to back him against McCain.

by GFORD 2008-03-27 09:44PM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

you just dont even get it at all.

Hillary went to Greta to announce how her role in this will ALL PLAY OUT, but you Obamaites are believing for what - will this be the 5th time now(?) that somehow hillary will be forced out of this race.

She just announced she's going to denver and she will demand and fight to seat mi and fl.

and you think this is minor thing?

I know her, you only think you do.

She's not leaving this race.  Bet on it.
If you had sense, youd even bet on her.

by John Wesley Hardin was a Friend to the Poor 2008-03-27 07:56PM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

She's not taking anything to Denver. They're going to shut her down long before June.

by mcgish 2008-03-27 06:55PM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

who and how?

you really  don't have a clue.

there is no way she can or will be pushed out if she wins PA.

Her supporters will back her completly!

Ill take ANY wager youre willing to bet.

Any amount .

by John Wesley Hardin was a Friend to the Poor 2008-03-27 07:10PM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

The supers will shut her down. There is already a movement afoot to do just that. Think for a moment, who has gathered the most super delegate support since Super Tuesday? Who do the party elders seem to favor? She will be shut down if she doesn't smell the coffee herself. She may stay in the race if she is making a positive case for her own candidacy. But they won't let her stay in it to destroy Obama and the party.

by mcgish 2008-03-27 07:17PM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

oh the msnbc inspired dreams of a obamaite.

how many times is this now hay ou folks have sad shd be forced to quit? 5?

dont you get it  - shes saying that all the mi and fl delegtes  won will be hers since obam shut down revoting.  that brings her within 50  delegates  BEFORE pa.

sh and her supporters have a RIGHT to argue in front of rules.

SHE CANT BE SHUT DOWN BEFORE THAT.

No re-voting was a huge obama blunder.

by John Wesley Hardin was a Friend to the Poor 2008-03-27 08:05PM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

No one says she can't argue but assuming the supers don't end this before convention, just for the sake of argument, the composition of the credentials committee makes their decision a foregone conclusion. Obama will have only his greatest loyalists controlling the committee and they will agree to seat Michigan and Florida in a way that does not allow Clinton to catch up.

But you should know it won't get there. Obama will only need about 150 more supers to end this and he'll get that by June. I wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't get a big block of those before Pennsylvania which will have the side effect of trimming her results there due to the strong media for him. If she does better than a 10 point margin in Pennsylvania I'll be shocked.

by brimur 2008-03-27 08:57PM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

where do you folks come up with this stuff?

thats NOT how the comm is put together.  lord.  chunks of it has already been named.

your superd fantasy is nothing more.

this is the 5th time you BOites have announced this fantasy..

and you always believe it and youre always so wrong.

by John Wesley Hardin was a Friend to the Poor 2008-03-27 09:35PM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

Clinton needs super delegates to win. Since Super Tuesday, and as of March 17 Obama had gained 47 and Clinton had lost 7. Moreover, Clinton's tactics are alienting supers. Coupled with the fact that she has no credible path to the nomination even those in her column are ready to bolt. And the undicideds are leaning heavily toward Obama.

I think you're the one living in a fantasy world.

by mcgish 2008-03-27 09:57PM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

I'll concede your point,  Jerome.  But I don't understand its relevancy.  I'm not apoplectic about Florida and Michigan counting.  But it simply isn't going to happen.  And who cares if Clinton is going to "go to the mat?"  All the raging in the world won't make it happen.

by XoFalconXo 2008-03-27 06:29PM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

You're under the impression that Democrats who want to win are going to be fine with writing two states off for the rest of this generation? Because they moved their primary up? What rule is worth losing those two states for the next several elections?

I think it's insane that anyone anywhere is thinking about writing these two states for even a minute.

Obama will have no legitimacy whatsoever as a candidate if he wins by virtue of those states disenfranchised. And he will lose because of it. Because every Democrat who prizes Democratic principles will refuse to vote for him and the Republicans will vote against him. He'll be left with his hardcore supporters and that'll be it. And that's not enough.

by Little Otter 2008-03-27 11:28PM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

"A member of Hillary Clinton's national finance team has started to circulate an online petititon that urges the Democratic National Committee to recognize the delegations from Michigan and Florida or else promise to hold new elections."

Obama should join in this effort.

He will be on "The View" tomorrow talking about not vetting his pastor.

by gotalife 2008-03-27 06:33PM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

But lets report the ENTIRE aspect of that letter.  You left out the threats made in it.

by yitbos96bb 2008-03-27 06:59PM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

Yes, what's funny is that it's addressed to Howard Dean, who has no control over this process.  You know why it's addressed to Dean?  Because it would look awfully silly if they were to address it to people such as Harold Ickes, who has the real power in this situation.

http://www.openleft.com/

To quote Bowers, "I guess it would look kind of strange for the Clinton campaign to be sending petitions to members of its own campaign."

by rfahey22 2008-03-27 07:06PM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

Why should Obama join in on this effort? It's really not his place.  The state democratic parties FUBAR'd this, and even screwed up a second chance...

He'll abide by whatever the state parties and the DNC agree to do, but, why would he go out on a limb for a revote, especially one that has been set up to specifically favor his opponent.

It's really not his fight... period...

That being said, I wish there was a revote, at least in MI... that way, everything would split halfway, nothing would change, and Hillary supporters couldn't complain anymore...

by LordMike 2008-03-27 07:42PM | 0 recs
Well sure it could happen...

... but it's not so much a lifeline as a kamikaze attack.

by kraant 2008-03-27 06:33PM | 0 recs
That's our girl! Don't let them off easy!

by lombard 2008-03-27 06:33PM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

Did Barack or his campaign (Plouffe, etc.) ever say that MI and FL shouldn't count?  I know they said the only way they would allow for them to be seated without a revote was 50/50, but I don't get the part where they told MI, "No, we don't want a revote."  At least not explicitly.

The stance they had, as far as I can remember, was that they would play by whatever rules the DNC dished out.

Please, I'm sure there are a bunch of you who are ready to jump all over me now with sources.  Please, I'd like to know.

by jlars 2008-03-27 06:33PM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

Well, that's sorta semantics, you know count means count the votes.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-03-27 06:37PM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

What I'm getting at is that the video you've posted shows Hillary telling FOX that "[Barack] doesn't wanna give people in Michigan that chance [to vote, have their voices heard, seat the delegates, choose your semantic of choice]."

When did he do this?  Or did he do this by not saying anything except that he would play by whatever rules the DNC and state parties of FL and MI decided.

by jlars 2008-03-27 07:18PM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/19/c linton.michigan/

"The Obama people are blocking it in the Legislature," the Democratic source tells CNN. The source also says the group has repeatedly and unsuccessfully reached out to the campaign for input and cooperation.

The source says that Obama's campaign has been asked to craft an alternative or to meet with the Clinton campaign to work out an acceptable compromise, but that those requests have been met with silence."

"The draft proposal under consideration in Michigan calls for a new Democratic primary on June 3, to be paid for with private money. The state Legislature would have to approve that plan.

The DNC issued a statement Wednesday saying the proposal meets the basic requirements of the national party's delegate selection rules."

by TxDem08 2008-03-27 09:18PM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

It just so turns out the source is actually Rupert Murdoch.  Who knew he was a Michigan Dem?

I'm only kidding, but I have to say that this is pretty lazy journalism when the only person saying Obama is obstructing the re-vote effort happens to be nameless.

I appreciate that you sourced your information though.  Thanks.

by jlars 2008-03-27 09:42PM | 0 recs
Here's the problem

...which Obama's lawyers have the consideration to acknowledge.

When BOTH Obama and Hillary agreed not to campaign in MI and agreed the vote WOULD NOT COUNT, Obama withdrew his name, so as not to lend credence to what was agreed would be a bogus vote. Hillary slyly said "Since it won't count anyway, what does it matter if I leave my name?" Very clever. And duplicitous, given what she would plan to do later.

In any case, since we Dem voters were ASSURED that no vote for a Dem would EVER be counted in MI and FL, we turned out to vote for down-ticket issues and candidates, and voted Ron Paul or Romney or somesuch, to weaken McCain's momentum, and help our party the only way we thought we could.

NOW, with the cries for a re-vote, it turns out that those of us who crossed over (and there are thousands and thousands of us) now won't be able to vote for our true candidate of choice in either FL or MI. (A punishment we were never warned about.)

All of which scuttles the entire purpose of a re-vote, which is to determine the actual will of the Democratic electorate re: the presidential nominee. (Not to mention the legion of "Operation Chaos" Limbaugh liberals who would be energetically scraped up from among those Republicans who were too dejected with the choices to vote in their own primary.)

With huge disenfranchising factors such as these, they might as well divide the delegates in half, seat them equally, and save the money and trouble.

by rhetoricus 2008-03-28 08:35AM | 0 recs
Like a good student

She campaigned in MI and FL "just in case." She deserves MI and FL like a good student whereas Obama ignored MI to diminish her predicted win there. You know the story of the hare and the tortoise.

by nonwhiteperson 2008-03-27 06:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Like a good student

Actually Obama campaigned in Florida, breaking the "Pledge" using extensive television advertising. And Clinton still won by a huge margin.

by OtherLisa 2008-03-27 10:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Like a good student

Was it also "good student" behavior to agree to the rules that MI and FL would not count, lending greater credibility to what ultimately would be a deceptive bamboozling of the voters (especially deceitful to those of us who voted Ron Paul to weaken McCain, since we were assured, and the candidates agreed, that no vote for a Dem would count)?

In other words, you're arguing that cheating is "good student" behavior. Which is true, if you're a student of Rove, which Hillary apparently is shaping up to be.

by rhetoricus 2008-03-28 08:22AM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

Wow.  I guess we're going to the convention floor in Colorado for a Credentials fight.  I can't wait.  If you think it's nasty now, just wait until three months before the GE.

I love it and hope she does it.

by TxDem08 2008-03-27 06:34PM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

Nothing like her destroying the party and her political career over ego.  I can't believe you would support such a action that would be so terribly bad for the party.  If the situation were reversed, I would be pissed as all hell if Obama tried a stupid arrogant stunt like that.  And see its that kind of thing that really makes it hard for me in November if she steals the nomination... to be principled and not support someone who defiled democracy or to be pragmatic and support someone who even though I am starting to feel about her the animosity I have for Lieberman, she is STILL a billion times better than McCain and the boy blunder (if he picks Romney).  That will be a tough decision and while I'm sure I'll have a better idea in November, right now I could honestly go either way... principle or pragmatism?  That's tough.

by yitbos96bb 2008-03-27 06:57PM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

Obama is the one using slash and burn divisive tactics.  His refusal to seat or even have a re-vote of MI & FL for starters, because he knows that HE WILL LOSE and is doing so in order to keep reaching for that golden egg of power that he has been seeking since getting out of law school.  The blocking of the MI & FL re-vote is the defiling and stifiling of democracy at it's core.

His tactics of race baiting, and slander campaigning are tearing the party apart and he knows he can not win the nomination on the delegates that he has or will get, make it extremely hard to even think of voting for him come November at this moment, regardless of how much I honestly do not like McCain, Lieberman and the rest of the Rethuglican cabal.

by TxDem08 2008-03-27 09:33PM | 0 recs
This is mere Clinton fan fiction.

by Addison 2008-03-27 06:34PM | 0 recs
Re: This is mere Clinton fan fiction.

Comment of the day; got it all in six words.

Pith worthy of the great essayist.

by BITNPB 2008-03-27 07:35PM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

Jerome - I don't get it. DCW has 1406-1249=157, and I thought the differential even with MI and FL was only 50 or so (i.e. even with them taken into account, Obama will be in the lead by 100 or so pledged delegates). How do you get 46-56? What am I missing?

by BostonIndependent 2008-03-27 06:35PM | 0 recs
I think

he is subtracting from the total count.

by kindthoughts 2008-03-27 06:37PM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

scroll down, see "With Michigan and Florida".

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-03-27 06:39PM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy
Wow. Hadn't realized that MI and FL had that much of an effect (the public MSM narrative I'd heard before was that it was more like 50). I'm amazed that the HRC campaign has not made more of this -- if those numbers are accurate or why the Obama campaign has not done anything to discredit (even subtly). I have long believed that there is a psychological barrier to act on the part of the super-delegates -- i.e. if someone leads in the pledged delegate count AND the popular vote, BUT the gap in terms of delegates is less than that threshold they might conceivably vote for the loser. In a normal primary cycle -- that threshold might have been a 100 or so, but this year it might be lower given Senator Obama's clever use of his race to be ahead at this juncture.
p.s. I don't see why you call it the lifeline strategy;  "Clinton only behind by 50 delegates not 150!" would get you a lot more flak :-)
by BostonIndependent 2008-03-27 06:52PM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

The problem is the subtly mentioned 55 uncommitted super delegates.  These specifically did not vote for Clinton even when she was an option, so allowing Michigan to seat will put up for grabs 55 delegates which should lean Obama.  So, the difference will be adjusted by that number.

Also, there is the inherent unfairness in counting an election where one of the candidates was not on the ballot.  It seems awfully dumb to even have to mention this.

by jbsloan 2008-03-28 02:51AM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

The problem with your math is that she doesn't really gain that many delegates from Florida - the bulk of her gain comes from the fact that Obama gets zero delegates from Michigan under your scenario.  And I don't see how she winds up with the benefit of an "election" where Obama wasn't on the ballot, and she said "really doesn't count for anything" under any (contested) circumstance.

I understand that she is now trying to spin that Obama killed re-votes in both states, but that's a tough case to make, with Obama having publicly stated that he would go along with whatever the DNC said, and that re-votes appeared to break down by the failure of state legislatures to come to agreement.  How does that fall on Obama?  The idea of reversing the outcome in favor of the guy who was the winner of the contested primaries by counting votes that the party said in no uncertain terms would not count -- by reversing that determination after the voting is over -- is frankly not much different than having superdelegates overrule the determination of the electorate.  Both smack of unfairness and cheating.  Which is why neither is particularly likely to happen.

by davey jones 2008-03-27 06:35PM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

Right, he's not counting the uncommitted as going for Obama, which they probably would. And he's not counting the Edwards voters as going for Obama, or at least splitting. So, with those delegates the pledged delegate lead is back up around 100.

Additionally, if Hillary pulls all that at the convention and gets this particular sweetheart deal that Jerome outlines (as opposed to the more likely 50/50 split of the delegates, or a halving of the delegates a la the GOP, or some OTHER convention MI/FL deal) and STILL doesn't beat Obama in pledged delegates I think it's rather ridiculous to say that she should THEN be put over the top by superdelegates.

Anyway, the FL and MI delegation might not be seated. If they are they probably won't be seated in this so astoundingly pro-Clinton way. And even if they ARE seated this way, the uncommitted delegates will be going for SOMEONE. And even if they split for Clinton and Obama, she STILL likely won't make up the difference. So maybe Clinton has a 50/50 shot at any one of those things happening. But 50% of 50% of 50% of 50% doesn't make for good odds.

by Addison 2008-03-27 06:42PM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

You guys just don't get it. No one is proposing that Clinton is going to lose the delegate vote and the popular vote and win, with all things being equal, by persuading the super delegates to support her. That's not gonna happen.

This race isn't over yet. And Rezko's trial isnt' finished yet. And Wright isn't likely to keep his mouth shut. Nor is Michelle. There are a half dozen other things that could go way wrong for Obama.

Clinton isn't likely to drop out until August and she has earned that right to stay in there and fight - it's what her supporters expect of her. And whether you like it or not, Obama did not aggressively support revotes and the lack of a revote will, rightfully, be laid at his door. Had he joined up with Clinton and demanded revotes, and offered to pay his half, they would have happened. Remember - the difference in terms of media is that clinton was offering to pay for Michigan which there was a good chance she would lose. Obama flaked. he did nothing. And his support insist that neither of the states will count in August. Fat chance.

Obama is going to be the Democrat who doesn't want to count all the votes .When the super delegates start considering the general election ramifications of that, it may get real ugly for him real fast.

At the very least, she may still win outright. And she's got every right to try. And no one is on moral or ethical ground demanding she step down.

by Little Otter 2008-03-27 11:39PM | 0 recs
Imagine If Clinton Tried To Block The Re-Vote?

Could you imagine the pure-hell that the media, so-called-progressives, and Democratic "leaders" would raise if it was Clinton who was blocking the Florida and Michigan re-votes?

by BigBoyBlue 2008-03-27 06:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Imagine If Clinton Tried To Block The Re-Vote?

Her campaign has already said it is against a revote in MI and FL.  have they changed their mind about that?

by DawnG 2008-03-27 06:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Imagine If Clinton Tried To Block The Re-Vote?

Who exactly do you think is 'blocking' it?

by Whash 2008-03-27 06:45PM | 0 recs

But I have a question for you:

Under what circumstances would the original, so-far-against-the-rules-the-candidates- agreed-not-to-be-on-the-ballot-or-campai gn-in-those-states primaries for MI and FL be ALLOWED to count?

it's all well and good to say that Clinton can win if we just count those delegates.  We can all fly if we can just get rid of that pesky thing called Gravity.

But gravity exists for a very good reason.  And MI and FL aren't being counted for a very good reason.

Can you give a COMPELLING reason why we should just do away with those rules and seat those delegates that have absolutely NOTHING to do with how it affects the outcome of the nomination.

Becuase let's be honest here, the fact that it WOULD have an outcome on the nomination is the reason you're for it isn't it?  You wouldn't be this gung ho to count these delegates if they were pledged for Obama, would you?  Can we at least be mature and admit there is a biased reason for asking for these states to suddenly count?

by DawnG 2008-03-27 06:36PM | 0 recs
Re: I cannot fault your math.

Can you give a COMPELLING reason why we should just do away with those rules and seat those delegates that have absolutely NOTHING to do with how it affects the outcome of the nomination.

I can give several: because the Democratic Party that I believe in has as one of its basic principles that every vote should count. Because basic principles are more important that badly drawn rules. Because it's the right thing to do (actually, a revote is the right thing to do -- barring that, seating the delegates is a less imperfect solution than not seating them).

Becuase let's be honest here, the fact that it WOULD have an outcome on the nomination is the reason you're for it isn't it?  You wouldn't be this gung ho to count these delegates if they were pledged for Obama, would you?  Can we at least be mature and admit there is a biased reason for asking for these states to suddenly count?

I can't speak for Jerome, but the effect on the outcome of the election has no bearing on my opinion in the matter. You may disagree with my opinion, and I'll grant that there is no perfect solution. But can we at least be mature and admit that some people believe things should be done for what they perceive to be the right reason? YOU may not agree with my positions for YOUR political reasons, but my positions have nothing to do with who I want to see win the nomination. [And, for the record, I believe Senator Obama would win the contest even if the delegates are seated as is.]

by fsm 2008-03-27 07:00PM | 0 recs
Re: I cannot fault your math.

I can give several: because the Democratic Party that I believe in has as one of its basic principles that every vote should count. Because basic principles are more important that badly drawn rules. Because it's the right thing to do (actually, a revote is the right thing to do -- barring that, seating the delegates is a less imperfect solution than not seating them).

A lot of voters stayed home in MI and FL because they were told way ahead of time that the delegates wouldn't be seated. Essentially that their primary didn't count.  Do they have a right to be heard?  Do they have a right to have a vote that DOES count?  This is a very good argument for a revote, but your argument does nothing to convince that the original primaries should count.

I am absolutely 100% for a revote.  I don't care if it's a caucus or a primary.  But it has to be legit.  If it's not legit it has no business being part of the process.

by DawnG 2008-03-27 07:06PM | 0 recs
Re: I cannot fault your math.

So we agree that a revote is the better solution. Barring that, we're left with a situation where either everyone in those states is disenfranchised, or 2.25 million people are enfranchised and a much smaller number are disenfranchised. As I said, it's imperfect, but it's still better.

by fsm 2008-03-27 07:12PM | 0 recs
Re: I cannot fault your math.

one could argue that for FL, but not for MI.

Clinton was the only major candidate on the Ballot in MI (after the top 3 including Clinton originally agreed not to be there).  That's not an election.  That is a sham.  the original MI primary should not count.

by DawnG 2008-03-27 07:26PM | 0 recs
Re: I cannot fault your math.

Not to mention that it has also been found unconstitutional by the state courts.

by bawbie 2008-03-27 08:09PM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

This is political masturbation.

by XoFalconXo 2008-03-27 06:36PM | 0 recs
Winning FL strategy for the general

As a Florida voter, I'm glad Hillary is fighting like hell for my vote and fighting like hell to get FL in the Dems win column in the general election. Go Hill! She's in it to win it! With Hillary drawing so much attention to Florida -- empowering FL voters who have been critical in 2000 and 2004 -- this is a win-win scenario for Dems.

by grlpatriot 2008-03-27 06:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Winning FL strategy for the general

She's in it to win it vs We're in it to win it.  That one statements says SO much about Clinton the person and its not a good thing at all... not to mention one of the WORST taglines in history which is probably why we don't hear it from the campaign.

by yitbos96bb 2008-03-27 06:53PM | 0 recs
Winners

No, what it says is that she is a winner and it takes a winner to win back the White House.

by grlpatriot 2008-03-27 07:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Winners

No its says she is arrogant, she is the only person to matter and SHE will put her own selfish ambitions over everything else.  And NOTICE THE CAMPAIGN DOESN'T REALLY USE IT ANYMORE.  BECAUSE IT NEVER RESONATED WITH VOTERS WHO FOUND IT ABSOLUTELY IDIOTIC AND ARROGANT!

by yitbos96bb 2008-03-27 07:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Winners

No, what it says is she is a politician who wants to win, just like Obama is, just like McCain is; to borrow a phrase, this is the business they have chosen, no?  Fighting is what they do.  Winning is what they try to do.  Look up some of the old campaign histories and you would see maneuvering that no one would try these days.

Just don't pretend that any of these arguments over Florida and Michigan have anything to do with anything except winning. Think of this as a gladiator sport, not a tea party.

by mady 2008-03-27 07:35PM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

She has to fight on.  I also believe the conspiracy from Donna Brazile.  But seriously, let's see this out at the convention.  Because we all know if she drops out they will then seat the delegates SHE won from FL and MI.  By not doing a re-vote they guarantee her going on to the convention.

by MidwestTracker 2008-03-27 06:37PM | 0 recs
I get such a chuckle out of Hillary's...

... full-throated defense of voters in Michigan and Florida when she and her team discounted nearly every state that Obama won.

by Bob Johnson 2008-03-27 06:38PM | 0 recs
Re: I get such a chuckle out of Hillary's...

by SluggoJD 2008-03-27 07:15PM | 0 recs
Re: I get such a chuckle out of Hillary's...

Have you read none of Penn's famous rants on this issue?

by rfahey22 2008-03-27 07:22PM | 0 recs
Penn is not Hillary

"Bob Johnson" said that Hillary did it.

I await proof.

by SluggoJD 2008-03-27 07:45PM | 0 recs
Re: I get such a chuckle out of Hillary's...

I've seen this asinine comment in various forms so many times, it seems people actually believe it. As a voter in one of those states she supposedly "discounted", I wasn't the least bit offended by her campaigns statements. Basically, as ALL CAMPAIGNS DO, they wanted to minimize the damage from losing in those states. So they presented the very VALID argument that those states for the most part are not states that will matter for Democrats in the general election. And you know what, she's right. Winning caucuses in states like Kansas, Wyoming, or North Dakota, or primaries in South Carolina and Louisiana, doesn't mean anything for the Democrats in the general election. Whoever the candidate is, they will be lucky to get 40 percent of the vote in those states. I seriously doubt that the Democratic candidate will set foot in any of these states or spend one penny in advertising in them. So the truth is, her campaign is right, these states don't matter.

by bouvougan 2008-03-28 05:08AM | 0 recs
Iowa doesn't matter?

Missouri?

Really?

by Bob Johnson 2008-03-28 08:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Iowa doesn't matter?

Show me where she or her campaign said the voters in Iowa and Missouri don't matter. They were talking about the fact that Obama won many states that won't matter for the Democrats when it comes to the general election. The flip side of the argument would be that Clinton has won several states that the Democratic candidate is almost guaranteed to win, no matter who wins the nomination. But to characterize it as you did is disingenuous nonsense.

by bouvougan 2008-03-28 08:55AM | 0 recs
Too easy.

Iowa Isn't That Important, Clinton Staffers Say

January 4, 2008, 4:14 am

ON BOARD THE CLINTON PLANE -- After pouring millions of dollars and nearly a year of effort into a win in Iowa, senior staffers for Democrat Hillary Clinton now say the state isn't that important after all.

"The worst thing would be to over count Iowa and its importance," said chief strategist Mark Penn, just hours after the New York senator finished in a disappointing third place, behind Illinois Sen. Barack Obama and former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards.

"Iowa doesn't have a record of picking presidents. We're in a strong position to move forward," Penn told a handful of reporters on board a chartered midnight flight that took Clinton staffers and such high-level supporters such as former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright from Des Moines, Iowa, to Manchester, N.H.

Wisconsin doesn't mater. Neither does Hawaii. Or many of the other states Obama won...

Clinton's Spin Machine: Spun Dry

Barack Obama beat Hillary Clinton for the ninth and tenth straight time last night, with blowouts in Wisconsin and Hawaii. Needless to say, this means nothing. As Clinton strategist Mark Penn explained yesterday, Wisconsin has a lot of independent voters, so it doesn't really matter. And Hawaii is practically Obama's home state, so it obviously doesn't matter. Anyway, as Penn said recently, "winning Democratic primaries is not a qualification or a sign of who can win the general election." It's apparently not even a sign of who can win the Democratic nomination -- at least not when the victories are Obama's.

...

The Clinton spin machine has been consistent about this. Nebraska, Idaho and Utah didn't matter because they were deep-red states. South Carolina, Louisiana and Georgia didn't matter because they had large percentages of black voters. Maine and Washington didn't matter because caucuses aren't truly representative. Maryland and Virginia didn't matter because Obama was expected to win there. For a moment, it looked like Missouri might matter when the networks called it for Hillary -- her campaign quickly bragged about winning a "closely contested toss-up state" -- but the networks were wrong.

by Bob Johnson 2008-03-28 10:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Too easy.

Dismissing the Iowa results as not being decisive in the election and saying that Iowa voters don't matter are two different things all together. You are implying that the Clinton camp doesn't believe Iowa voters are important, and I should take personal offense at it. I don't see their spin saying that at all. I fully expect any candidate coming out of Iowa with a loss would say the exact same thing, and they would. In fact, every campaign tries to downplay the significance of a loss, so it appears you expect the Clinton campaign to be different. Maybe you expected her to say that the Iowa loss was truly devastating to her chance at the nomination and there's no sense continuing in the race. And the Time story you link to is an editorial piece so slanted that it sounds like something you would write.

The one time I did hear the Clinton camp talk about a contest being potentially decisive for their candidacy was the Texas and Ohio primaries. Bill Clinton actually came out and said that those primaries were a must-win situation for his wife. And this was at a time when the polls had Obama and Clinton very close in Ohio and Obama with a lead in Texas. I thought it was gutsy, and they pulled it off.

by bouvougan 2008-03-28 11:25AM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

The problem is Hillary doesn't have a foot to stand on with the DNC or the Obama Campaign.

She is playing politics and they all know it. She agreed to the rules when they all thought it would be over for feb. 5th. Then after she it became obvious that every delegate would count. she went and said that Florida needed to be counted.

she is being a hypocrite about it, so when she is behind closed doors with no cameras, facing these people face to face.

she has no leverage to bargain with here. Behind closed doors they will have problems with her. THAT is why the parties aren't going to do a re-vote. She has no leverage behind closed doors to push for them to count.

They will compromise, and it will be in away that wont affect the race enough. say Hillarys net win out of florida being +19 instead of +38

by TruthMatters 2008-03-27 06:38PM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

Jereom,

Help me out, because I seriously may be missing something here.  If there isn't a re-vote, and it doesn't look like there will be, the only way that Florida and Michigan can count is if the credentials committee agrees to seat their delegation.  Whoever is in the lead after all the primaries end will control the credentials committee, right?

Under those circumstances, I don't see how HRC can dictate how those delegates are seated.  So what would stop Obama's folks from simply seating Michigan and Florida with their delegates split 50/50?  To me, that clearly seems like the most likely conclusion, but maybe I have my mechanics wrong somwhere.

by HSTruman 2008-03-27 06:39PM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

I don't know all the ins and outs of the credentials committee, but I don't think they can do a 50-50 at the credentials committee-- that be news to me. The delegates get chosen much earlier, and will be based on the vote that happened, if another doesn't happen.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-03-27 06:43PM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

The delegates chosen will NOT be based on the vote that happened.  Will not, will not, will not! This vote was not sanctioned by the DNC, it never happened, all parties concerned signed a pledge attesting to this fact!

by PittsburghPete 2008-03-27 06:50PM | 0 recs
DNC rules are discriminatory

The DNC Rules are discriminatory and should not be followed. I wish New York had moved up as a form of Civil Disobedience. Good for Michigan. Why not have one day national primary. Why should Iowa go first. Iowa is the state with the lowest gay population in the country. Is it a coincidence that they were chosen first.

by maxstar 2008-03-27 06:58PM | 0 recs
Re: DNC rules are discriminatory

Legally the DNC cannot go against their own rules

The DNC never sanctioned the votes, its like it never happened, The Candidates also signed pledegs to this.

basically if they act like the votes did happen, a Citizen in that state would have standing to sue in the Federal courts.

IT won't happen, Hillary knows it, she is just talking loud to create political pressure on the DNC

by TruthMatters 2008-03-27 07:03PM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

Assuming the rules committee can only decide whether or not to seat MI and FL, and cannot enforce a distribution of delegates, and without an agreement brokered by the DNC with the campaigns, the decision could go to the convention floor, where the outcome will be determined by the nominee with the most delegates at hand.  Unless something north of 70% of the uncommitted superdelegates immediately support Clinton, Obama would have the upper hand there, also. And with Speaker Pelosi as Convention Chair.

Seems to me that this is where all the recent Clinton camp language (led by HRC herself) about the potential independence of pledged delegates comes into play.  Maybe I'm missing something, but that seems a pipedream.

Also, I've read several pieces on the PR governor indicating his popularity could actually increase with the indictment, given PR's often antagonistic relationship with the federal government.

by Kensingtonbill 2008-03-27 06:57PM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

That's both wrong and right.

The credentials committee can seat delegates or not seat delegates. They couldn't, say, implement the 50%-voting-power DNC penalty, as far as I'm aware. Now, it's entirely possible that the convention itself could implement the 50%-voting-power penalty.

But the credentials committee just seats or doesn't seat delegates. So, in theory, you're right: if the Michigan delegation or the Florida delegation walk up and say, seat us, they can decide up or down... right?

Well, no. Not that simple. Why? Because what is the Michigan delegation? Legally, there isn't one. There are a bunch of people selected as the result of an election that officially never happened. Same in Florida. At this moment they're not a delegation, they're a bunch of people who claim to be a delegation. Until the credentials committee rules, that's all they are.

There's nothing preventing an organized group of Obama supporters representing 45%, or 50%, of the Michigan delegation total to also call themselves a delegation and present themselves to the credentials committee.

The committee could decide that the "original delegation" (which, remember, does not really exist) is valid, and seat it.

It could decide that some of them are valid and others are not, and seat them (say, 55% of them, but not the rest).

It could decide that the delegation representing the other 45% was valid, or it could decide that they're not.

I could fly to Denver and present myself for seating as a delegate from Texas. If they say I am, guess what? I am.

So in fact, they've got a fair bit of power to adjust things. In particular, I could easily see them saying, sorry, Clinton only received 55% of the vote in Michigan, no way we're seating more than 55% of the delegates alloted to Michigan for her. And they could easily say, Uncommitted won the other 45%; Uncommitted represented the other primary contenders; none of the rest are viable, so we're seating those as Obama delegates.

Or they could do something else entirely.

by Texas Gray Wolf 2008-03-27 08:25PM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

But would the Michigan and Florida delagates have a say in a floor fight?  If not, it's going to be very difficult to get them seated unluss the supers insist on it.

by mikelow1885 2008-03-27 09:25PM | 0 recs
Suppose Obama Simply Ignores Her?

Will anybody in the media pay attention?

She'll campaign with what money?

by bernardpliers 2008-03-27 06:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Suppose Obama Simply Ignores Her?

she'll campaign with the money her supporters send her whenever she asks

by ginaswo 2008-03-27 07:16PM | 0 recs
These numbers show that what ultimately

determines the nominee - achieving the support of enough delegates to reach 2024 or whatever number the size of the delegations from MI and FLA that will be seated( or not) which will bring the number to possibly up to 2207  for the nomination - is close and that Pennslyvania will give not just a psychological boost to the Clinton Campaign if she wins big. She is preventing Obama from winning.

What Hillary Clinton is doing is achieving stalemate; the longer she stays in the more likely that a core group of undeclared super delegates start to look at Al Gore as the DH( now that baseball season has started that term fits). He's rested, he isn't touched by the acrimonius backbiting that is going on and they are looking at the polling concerning McCain.

I wrote in the comments on another thread that his name wouldn't logically be placed in nomination unless and until 4, 5, or 6 ballots have gone by with no nominee: everyone in the nation would have seen by then that the process had been open, no doubt bitterly divided, and entrenched. After that had been concluded people would be looking for a way out and for a way to unite.

Unless undeclared super delgates start proclaiming their preferences now and Obama or Clinton actually gets to the Convention with enough delegates to be nominated on the first ballot then  we are looking at numerous ballots  no-one can take the spectre of Al Gore getting the nomination out of the equation. I just don't see how either candidate ( HC or BO)can  win unless they win on the first ballot.

Anything other than one ballot gives us another nominee.

by merbex 2008-03-27 06:40PM | 0 recs
Re: These numbers show that what ultimately

You don't think that would leave Gore and the party Damaged in November?  I love Gore, but unless Obama or Hillary gets too ill to continue or worse, him getting the nom this way can't be good for the November election.  I just don't see how it would... Now if one of them were to get sick and he filled in due to that, well that's a different story.

by yitbos96bb 2008-03-27 06:51PM | 0 recs
For the Gore scenario to &quot;work&quot;

it would have to be only when it is completely apparent that the Convention was deadlocked.

The only way that is shown is by having multiple ballots with no winner achieving the number necessary to go over the top and partisans on the floor showing the divisiveness and undoubtedly the bitterness that would be engendered.

After having 4,5,or 6 chances to achieve the nomination and not getting it only then as a way to break the "logjam" would Gore be acceptable.

And he is acceptable to both sides - by not campaigning but by accepting the nomination in this fashion he would be "serving" the Democratic Party and the Nation.

He would be separate from the battle that has been waged between the Clinton and Obama camps and he would unite the Party but only after a fair, long, OPEN process has played out.

I am becoming more convinced every day that Obama or Clinton have to get the nomination on the first ballot and if neither can it will be Gore.

If it unfolds this way it would be the quintessential "Cinderella" story and I would have no worries about the race versus McCain ... Gore would win ion a landslide.

I'm willing to predict that Obama would accept the Veep spot in this instance.

I'm not fooling myself.... this is a longshot but it bettable at this moment and one would probably be able to get odds on it in Vegas.

by merbex 2008-03-27 07:11PM | 0 recs
Re: For the Gore scenario to &quot;work&quot;

What does it take to get the nomination of the first round? Is it a simple majority or some form of supermajority?

by poserM 2008-03-27 07:32PM | 0 recs
Reaching the number that we have seen

"2024"

which represents what is necessary without seating FLA and MI but it gets hairy when you include  FLA and MI because the number goes to 2207 when both states are seated at full strength delegations and depending on the formula worked out if any smaller portion of those delegations are seated the number will go up from 2024  but below 2207

If a substantial number of undeclared super delegates call out "abstain", or vote "present" during the vote when the states poll their delegations  to record officially during the roll call of states neither HC or BO will have enough to win on the first ballot or any ballot.... because it is so close those undeclared "supers" must commit or they are throwing this to Gore IMHO after 4,5, or 6 ballots.

Both sides should better hope that all "supers" declare their preference before the Convention or we are facing this scenario

by merbex 2008-03-28 02:47AM | 0 recs
Re: These numbers show that what ultimately

Jeez.  If we're that divided (going into multiple ballots at the convention), we will lose.  Period.  What party apparatus would Gore rely on in his historic three-month campaign?  Whose supporters would he use, free of charge?  Whose money would he borrow?

by rfahey22 2008-03-27 07:14PM | 0 recs
Re: These numbers show that what ultimately

I agree. I don't think Gore or anyone will be able to walk in and pick up the pieces at that point. It'll be too late. If BO and HC bow out, they'll probably close down the hundreds of offices they've opened and send home the thousands of people who've been working on the ground to make things happen.

by poserM 2008-03-27 07:35PM | 0 recs
Re: These numbers show that what ultimately

Yeah, the Gore fantasy really falls apart if one assumes that he would be starting with almost no infrastructure.  Unless perhaps he were to appropriate the entire staff of either candidate, or perhaps take one as his VP and thereby appropriate their resources (but wouldn't that still antagonize the other camp?).

by rfahey22 2008-03-27 07:43PM | 0 recs
Oh come on, if all of what I have described

comes to pass, people would contribute maybe not say, the \$100 bucks they'd have given if their guy/gal were to have gotten it but I think both sides' partisans would kick in \$25-\$50 bucks realizing that McCain can't be allowed to win it by default.

But if Obama or Clinton gets it I'm pretty confident writing that they can't count on the loser's side contributing anything....

So the Gore scenario does get money being contributed especially if Party leaders start immediately talking about how important it is to raise money and about having all hands on deck.

As far as "volunteers", say hello to the benefits of Dean's 50 state strategy... if nothing else Party activists in all states( I'm one in MA) would be expected to step up. It might be as simple as organizing signs; we do have lists to do phone banking and I'm confident that the call would go out for "all hands on deck" and in this environment both sides know who snagged the activists.....since both sides in effect "lost out" both sides activist supporters( longtime Dem activists) have no incentive to sit home and pout as one side may have done because their guy/gal didn't get it.

No Dem activist I know in MA would sit home and pout while their fellow Democratic Town Committee Member who supported HC over BO or vice versa  was seen out holding a  sign for Gore. That person "pouting " would be looked at as petty.

The only way this works is for it to happen after multiple ballots....it cannot be seen as taking away from anyone but rather as a method of unifying and unifying around someone both sides respect.

by merbex 2008-03-28 02:35AM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

It is interesting.  This idea about striking a balance.  Is it better for the party to either have a revote in Michigan and/or Florida or seat their delegates at the convention or is it better for the party to not seat them because there won't be an incentive from stopping any state to move their primary up and Iowa and New Hampshire will continue to retain the first in the nation status.  I don't know what you do....  Does anyone know what the legal consequences of the federal judge in Michigan ruling that the lists weren't private and had to be distributed to everyone? (I could have that issue completely out of whack, my apologies if I do).  I would guess, based on that,, that possibly the results from the Michigan vote couldn't be considered accurate... Is that possible?

by jakedecker 2008-03-27 06:44PM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

It's all crocodile tears.  She didn't give a damn about them until she fell behind for good and realised she couldn't snag the nomination without them.  She uttered not a single word about it until she was losing, and now it has become the central theme of her campaign.

She does seem to be willing to go nuclear over this.  Meaning, she is willing to push a dangerously divisive convention fight simply to advance her own interests.  Hers truly is a scorched earth campaign, if that is true.  She will burn it all down rather than allow someone else the win.  She can turn the convention from a momentum builder into an enormous weight to drag around.

She will not win the presidency in 2008, nor 2012, nor ever, because of this.  Her name will be mud within the party.  But she can do much damage to the fortunes of the Dems and progressives in 2008.

She cannot win at this point.  What she can do is either help or hinder.  And a bloody convention fight is the absolute worst kind of damage she can do.

by digdug 2008-03-27 06:44PM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

See, that's the thing I don't get... She had no problem whatsoever with the agreement on these two states back when it was signed.  Presumably because she didn't think she'd need those states to win.  Now suddenly she's concerned about it?  How is her motivation here not totally transparent to everyone?

by Whash 2008-03-27 06:51PM | 0 recs
So....what do you want her to say?

I am an Obama supporter and i expect her to say those exact things. Of course, you listen to the press and they exaggerate and twist things and you come here yelling and running like chickens without heads. Did you expect her to say "Oh no no, i am losing let me drop out from the race....i am turning all my delegates from Fl/Mi to Senator Obama..oh..please pardon me."

Folks, what she said is totally normal and any other candidate would have said the same thing. If Senator Obama were in her spot, i would urge him and expect him to say the same things. She is talking to her base and her supporters and she is sending them a strong message so they stay involved and excited and not be discouraged and stay home on election day.

Let us relax...take a breather.

by likelihood zero 2008-03-27 06:47PM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

You wrote: "Including MI & FL...".  Okay, stop right there.  You can't include MI and FL, because the contests that were held were not sanctioned by the DNC; BOTH CANDIDATES PLEDGED NOT TO PARTICIPATE NOR ACCEPT THE RESULTS!  Hence, your point is moot from the very start of your argument.

You wrote:  Obama's got everything going for him....  They [the Obama camp] don't want to chance Clinton winning two more big states...."

It's funny how you know exactly what the Obama campaign thinks; it's actually quite extraordinary.

Besides your ability to read minds, there's this: Quick, besides MI and FL (two states that were stripped of their primaries by the DNC), name one state where Obama has been afraid to compete against Hillary; quick.  The answer is: ding, ding, none!  He didn't try to get the results of AR thrown out, nor TN, nor CA, nor any of the states where she was leading before the contest nor after the contest was conducted. He's even competing with here here in PA, where a few weeks ago Hillary was leading by 26; it's down to 10.  Your argument is weak.

You wrote: "...but by not going along with it [a re-vote that would have disqualified anyone who voted in the Republican primaries, including many Obama supporters]they give Clinton a lifeline via her ability to count those states as they stand...."

Again, there is no way, I repeat, no way that the results will stand as is; they each signed a pledge not to count the states' illegal primaries!  How can it be more simple and straight forward?

The bottom line is this: Hillary agreed with Obama and the DNC at the beginning of the primaries because she thought she would waltz right into the White House.  Well, what a shock, now that she realizes that she won't waltz right into the White House, she goes against her word, her pledge, and her bond and now disagrees with herself.  She's so complex.

The MI courts have already ruled that the vote was not valid, and the DNC has been very clear that the vote, as conducted WILL NOT COUNT.  No matter how many times you say the sky is green, it is not green.  The sky is blue, MI and FL will not count, and your candidate is in dire straights.

by PittsburghPete 2008-03-27 06:48PM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy
They did not sign a pledge not to count Michigan and Florida. The candidates signed a pledge that they would not campaign in Michigan and Florida. www.fladems.com/page/-/documents/THREE_p ledge_versions.pdf
by katrinareyes 2008-03-27 08:36PM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

So lest see, Clinton agreed in writing to the rules that now may prevent FL and MI from being seated. Now however needing both to be seated to secure the nomination she is fighting for them? Nom, she is fighting to ignore the rules which she first agreed to because it suits her. This woman was not talking about disenfranchising voters when she agreed to it with the belief she was the shoo in candidate. She is as friggin hypocrite and if she were to get the nomination by such scheming, I will cast my vote for McCain......I am not even a big Obama supporter. I was an Edwards guy.....but I will not support a candidate who wont abide by the rules that they all agreed to.

by adb67 2008-03-27 06:48PM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

She will try, but Bowers brings up a great point... Obama is going to control rules and credentials via his PD totals.  At that point, he can seat Mich and FL however he wants too.  This is a LONG shot, an 80 yard hail mary pass that probably won't connect.  When Obama runs Rules and Credentials, he will put through a 50-50 split of Michigan and FL or leave FLorida as is and that's the ball game without a lot of SDs violating the will of the people.

by yitbos96bb 2008-03-27 06:49PM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

Where did Bowers bring that up?  I don't understand how the cred comm. can split an already selected delegation. That's not the way it works.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-03-27 06:53PM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?dia ryId=4798

Read Myth Number Two.  Sorry Jerome, but he makes a pretty compelling argument.  Based on some googling I have done, he seems dead on right.

by yitbos96bb 2008-03-27 07:12PM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

Two Things:

1) The numbers are my guesses, FTR.

2) If you are going to hand out warnings, at LEAST tell us what you are warning us about.  I see nothing that was posted that deserved a warning.  I said NOTHING attacking any user, just talking about a candidate I don't like.  No user was called stupid or anything else.  So while I respect the warning, not telling me WHAT comment I am being warned about really makes it difficult to understand exactly what you or other moderators consider objectionable since it is pretty subjective.  Without this guidance, it makes it far more difficult to prevent future abuses when we aren't sure what it is we are being punished for.  It's like your brother punchign you while your sleeping and not telling you why.

Just something to think about.  Its a fairly reasonable request in my opinion.

by yitbos96bb 2008-03-27 07:19PM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

You said: "When Obama runs Rules and Credentials, he will put through a 50-50 split of Michigan and FL"

Chris didn't make that claim, and its good that he didn't cause I don't think its correct.

They either accept the delegation as is, or not, they don't get to change its makeup.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-03-27 07:47PM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

One more note, Obama will nevr allow those votes to count as stand considering they all agreed to the rules. Without his consent the DNC wont allow it. And if Clinton tries to use some legal maneuver to make them count I can guarantee......the democratic party will be in shambles....the youth vote will stay home and blacks will turn their back on the party for at least the next decade.....

by adb67 2008-03-27 06:51PM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

Yes !!!

The old " Give me the nomination because I am Black " rule.

I am beginning to think quite a few Obama supporters actually are in line with Ferraro.

by lori 2008-03-27 07:04PM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

No, it's the "give me the nomination because I followed the rules of the election and won" rule.

It's just that the AA and youth populations are more likely to take it personally if Obama is denied the nomination by suddenly counting an election that everyone agreed wouldn't count.

The question wouldn't be if McCain would win; it would be if the Democratic Party would be able to reunite in the next 20 years.

by thezzyzx 2008-03-27 07:13PM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

there it is!!
the AA and youth vote will stay home argument

newsflash: the Latinas, Seniors, "under educated whites" (largest Dem block fyi), the AAs (decried as Uncle Toms) who support HRC, Catholics, the many many 'eductaed' HRC supporters and other sundry Dems and crossover women GOP voters will more then make up for it

now try wining the GE in November with just your vaunted AA and youth vote

by ginaswo 2008-03-27 07:22PM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

LOL 'educated' typo ROTF

is it a Freudian typo?! perrrhaps!

by ginaswo 2008-03-27 07:23PM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

We can't.  Duh.  That's why if Obama were in Clinton's shoes, I'd be one of the people telling him to step down.

...of course he would have by Wisconsin, but...

by thezzyzx 2008-03-27 07:25PM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

After lying repeatedly about her Conquest of Bosnia With Her Bare Hands, I don't think Hillary's credibility is going to be sufficient to get many superdelegates to go with her, no matter how much fancy math her supporters come up with.

And don't I recall that it was those of us in the Obama camp who were dismissed as members of the "math club?"

by global yokel 2008-03-27 06:51PM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

She seems somewhat upset.

I think the problem with that issue is that it is unrealistic.  Hillary's pretty much only good day for pledged delegates was with Ohio and she got like 9 pledged delegates.

And that was with obama focusing all of his attention on texas.  That wont be true this time.

She simply doesn't have the organizational strength to back up her desperate grasp at that last tuft of grass.

by TerraFF 2008-03-27 06:54PM | 0 recs
She muddles the issue

She is mixing DNC decisions with Obama's decisions and trying to lay it all on Obama's lap.

The DNC decision to not count the Florida and Michigan original primary is not Obama's fault. He and Hillary both agreed to follow the DNC's rules.

Then,

Florida tried to workout a revote and couldn't. Florida not re-voting is not Obama's fault.

Michigan developed a re-vote plan but independents and republicans who voted in the original primary could not vote in the Dem re-vote. That is unfair to Obama because he attracts more of those voters. So he didn't agree. That's not an unreasonable position.

Hillary has no valid beef against Obama. She does have a  valid complaint that here she is, pretty close to Obama, and those big states won't count when they could really help her. But there is no basis to blame Obama for the situation.

by Mojo Risen 2008-03-27 06:55PM | 0 recs
Re: She muddles the issue

It's apparently easier to blame him than the DNC and Republicans who are largely responsible for this.

by Whash 2008-03-27 07:00PM | 0 recs
falling flat

Yes, she is using the situation for political gain. Hoping to squeeze some support from Obama in upcoming states, and setting a scenario where, should the extremely unlikely situation develop where one or both these states re-vote, she's the one who wanted their voice to count and he's the one who wanted to silence them.

I think the voters in these states and around the country see that. Her claims of some moral purpose in this issue fall flat.

by Mojo Risen 2008-03-27 07:09PM | 0 recs
Re: She muddles the issue

No, she's calling the issue correctly.

At this point the DNC is Obama and that is the problem. A problem that will cost the Dems the GE if he is the nominee because he's winning a way that disenfranchises Democrats.

by cath 2008-03-27 07:01PM | 0 recs
Re: She muddles the issue

Obama is the DNC?  When did that happen?

by Whash 2008-03-27 07:07PM | 0 recs
Re: She muddles the issue

When Brazil, Dean, and Pelosi jumped the shark for him. Instead of being honest brokers they have been partisans for Obama.

by cath 2008-03-27 07:11PM | 0 recs
Re: She muddles the issue

You're using that phrase (jumping the shark) wrong.  ;)

by Whash 2008-03-27 07:17PM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

Yep.

I thought all along that Obama should have let MI revote, and take his lumps if that were the case. (screw Florida - that's McCain Country).

His failure to do so exposes his own fear that he doesn't have enough game.

I'm totally in the tank for Obama, and I think this was a bad call.

Now Hillary seems posed to amplify this bad call into Democratic Party civil war.

It's a bad situation for Democrats, whoever we favor.

by Ddeele 2008-03-27 06:55PM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

Gonna ask again, how did Obama not let MI revote?

by Whash 2008-03-27 07:02PM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

The Republican state legislatures were never going to approve any solution that got the Dems off the hook. The FL and MI revotes were dead before they started.

They will get seated but not in a way that will impact the outcome.

by hankg 2008-03-27 07:10PM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

That's not true.

The MI legislature was close to approving the revote. But the Obama campaign refused to sign off on it.

Even his supporter BTD at Talk Left called him out on it.

Bottom line, he faced even a greater loss of face because he would have gotten killed in those states.

by cath 2008-03-27 07:13PM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

Um no... the DEMS in MICH were close to approval but then DROPPED it when the GOP in the legislature said they won't vote for it PERIOD.

by yitbos96bb 2008-03-27 07:21PM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

Clinton supporters have no answer for this.  Instead they close their eyes and continue to  saying he is responsible.

They are refuseing to understand that Clinton and her supporters are now simply pawns in the republican army

by gil 2008-03-27 08:55PM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

"Supporter" is probably too strong a word for BTD. I know he claims to be one, but I think he uses that as cover for posing as the voice of reason to Hillary partisans. I'm not saying he isn't worth reading or that he is wrong in this instance (I didn't follow him on this topic). I'm just saying I think it is a mistake to overvalue his position as an Obama partisan (fair-minded or otherwise). He is anything but that.

by tessellated 2008-03-27 08:15PM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

A sin of omission, at best.

by Ddeele 2008-03-27 08:42PM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

as it stands, those two states will not be seated nor should they be (a caucus or primary needs to be redone).

it's also worth talking about the danger this precedent would give any state to go against DNC rules in the event she wins this fight (which she has a 0% chance of accomplishing in the way Jerome has devised the delegate split).

Any of you "average" Americans should not be so blinded by the fact that in the future, establishment candidates can stack the primary schedule in such a way to kill off any potential net or grassroot candidates. There needs to be a strong message that toying with the primary schedule in a manner that MI and FL took will not be tolerated.

it's worth fighting for a solution to this problem but not as Jerome so carelessly addresses it.

by alex100 2008-03-27 06:56PM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

the way the DNC stacked SC in front to help BO?

that way??

by ginaswo 2008-03-27 07:26PM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

no silly.

south carolina had been traditionally the first Southern state to vote. Nothing changed the primary dynamics when the DNC allowed them to move up.

not to mention that the state leadership agreed to keep the January 29th (?) date if the DNC didn't grant them permission.

you see, they would have played by the rules if they had been turned down.

by alex100 2008-03-27 08:00PM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

DNC stacked in favor of BO?

Does anyone remember Barack Obama at the start of the race?  He was an interseting idea, but a nobody.  He wasn't taken seriously until he won Iowa, or shortly before.  He's a first term senator, what powerful connections does he have to make the DNC do his bidding?

To say that mysteriously the DNC was already in favor of him like 6+ months prior to the first primary is a little absurd.

by SoCalRefugee 2008-03-28 02:47AM | 0 recs
The Wright Stuff
earth
*************
troposphere
*************
stratosphere
*************
mesosphere
*************
ionosphere
*************
exosphere
*************
jeromeosphere
*************
outer space
by mboehm 2008-03-27 06:59PM | 0 recs
You're ionosphere is up your atmosphere

It's thermosphere there, not inosphere.

I should know, having transcended it all.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-03-27 07:11PM | 0 recs
Re: You're ionosphere is up your atmosphere

I knew you were a boddhitsava Jerome!

by ginaswo 2008-03-27 07:27PM | 0 recs

A lot of you seem to be concerned with taking into account the will of the people. However, I haven't seen anybody addressing the issue of Democrats that voted in the Republican primary, estimated to be 400,000, because they were told their vote won't count. How do we make sure that their will counts?

by ges69 2008-03-27 07:06PM | 0 recs

Not just that, but what about those that didn't go vote because they knew it wasn't going to count?  There's a reason those states had such low turnout.  There were tens, probably hundreds of thousands of voters that stayed home.  They get ignored?

by Whash 2008-03-27 07:10PM | 0 recs

An interesting question - when that issue is raised, many here hide behind the rules stating that one cannot vote in both primaries, or say that it's somehow "unfair" to vote in both.  Rules are bad, except when they're good.  The irony is astounding.

by rfahey22 2008-03-27 07:47PM | 0 recs
Knock yourself out Hillary

Hillary was happy to sign on to the DNC rules when she thought she didn't need FL and MI. Since at that point she was pandering to IA and NH she had no problem with sticking it to FL.

She has her fat cat backers threaten the DNC and the super delegates. She goes on Fox and dares the party to stop her at the convention. Bill says the kitchen sink is just the beginning let's saddle up and have it out. It's no wonder her negatives are rising rapidly and her positives sinking. The path to the nomination gets more and more convoluted and far fetched by the day.

She has become a desperate caricature of herself ready to do and say anything to get the prize. Well, knock yourself out Hillary. You are doing more damage to yourself then anyone else. I think the super delegates are going to act eventually and not at all in the way she is hoping. After being threatened and dared to challenge her I think they will be happy in the end to respond in kind.

by hankg 2008-03-27 07:06PM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

What I've never heard explained is how the heck do you sell this to Obama voters?  Here it is late August.  Obama has a solid pledged delegate lead.  Then suddenly, that's reversed due to an election that it was agreed on would not count and where his name wasn't on the ballot.

You then have a little over two months to suddenly win back all of the Obama supporters.  How exactly do you intend to do that?  Until you can explain that detail, this plan is nothing but a suicide pact, guaranteed to make the name Clinton more hated among Democrats than Nader.

by thezzyzx 2008-03-27 07:08PM | 0 recs
Many 'Obama voters' wish they could take that vote

BACK..

At least among my circle of friends..

by architek 2008-03-27 08:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Many 'Obama voters' wish they could take that

Unless your circle of friends is about 10,000,000 people, that doesn't mean anything more than the fact that my mom voted for Clinton and after the speech now supports Obama.

by thezzyzx 2008-03-28 03:23AM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

You are in denial of the potential reality of all that above?

1. Does thinking this is a wildly unlikely fantasy count as being "in denial of the potential reality"?

2. And while we're on the subject, what did the English language ever do to you?

3. Do we really need a front page diary on one Clinton supporter's imaginary world where FL and MI are going to be seated? Even the Clinton campaign gave up on that when they decided to promote re-votes.

4. Obama did more than his share for a re-vote by promising to support whatever remedy the DNC and the states came up with. They broke the rules, they paid a price, and you expect him to bend over backwards to extend this trench warfare even further? You expect the winner of the contest to help you go back and re-write the rules to the benefit of the other side? Do you for a second believe that if their positions were reversed, and Clinton held an insurmountable lead in pledged delegates, that she would be supporting re-votes?

5. The question is not whether one can imagine a scenario in which Hillary Clinton wins the nomination. One can, although it requires an increasingly vivid imagination as the race wears on. The question -- for the SDs and the recognized leaders of the party like Gore and Edwards -- is whether an extremely small chance of a good thing happening for Hillary Clinton is worth an extremely large chance of something bad happening to the party and the county as the fight drags on.

by BITNPB 2008-03-27 07:09PM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

Bottom line she is not going anywhere. Nor are the voters from Florida/MI. (Well actually many will go Republican in the GE.)

The DNC wrongly decided to strip FLA/MI of their votes. It now refuses to correct that mistake because its leadership has sold out to the Obama campaign.

Play all the pledged delegate games you want - pump up any false number of polls you desire - even revel  in your wildly outrageous personal claims against Hillary.

But don't imagine for a moment that Obama will not pay a price for your antics. You have alienated significant portion of the party (most of whom don't live on a computer screen). Equally as significant you have cut away at the crucial 20% that swing every election.

One note to Jerome. If Gore steps in, it had better be with a different Vice-President. Otherwise the Party really can kiss off Hillary's supporters. If all Obama was truly fit for was the VP spot, then it should have been as her VP.

by cath 2008-03-27 07:09PM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

Gore stepping in to head the ticket? What fantasyland are you people from? And why would Obama even consider the VP under Clinton when he is going to be the nominee?

by mcgish 2008-03-27 07:22PM | 0 recs
Corrections

OK lets start.  First on PR:

It's possible that 2 million could vote in that primary

No its not really.  The total turnout in PR in a general election was 2,000,000.  No primary vote for one party approaches the total in a general election.  A 1,000,000 turnout would be huge.  New York State didn't turn out 2,000,000 for the primary and it population is nearly five times as large and its 2004 general election turnout was 7.5 times higher.
Second, you sort of trail off at the end because continuing the thought just highlights that its whistling in the dark.  If everything changed so that the Florida and Michigan delegates were seated despite their primaries being illegitimate and Obama not being on the Michigan ballot AND she  gains on the current polls and she wins by the largest margin of her campaign in Pennsylvania she'll ...

still be behind!  And the Pennsylvania ground Hillary could make up she'd then lose in NC and Indiana (which are both 15+% margins according to the most recent polls).

by PantsB 2008-03-27 07:09PM | 0 recs
The SDs

aren't ending this thing now, b/c they don't want to anger Clinton supporters.  They're hoping that she'll concede, but that looks like a no-go.  They'll probably ride this out till June and then do their mini-convention to settle it.

This theory is nice and counting FL might be a possibility, but counting MI as it is won't happen unless there is re-vote.

by venavena 2008-03-27 07:10PM | 0 recs
Sorry Jerome

but it's all over but the shoutin'. Your endless Clinton rationalizations will be coming to an end soon.

by bigdcdem 2008-03-27 07:10PM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

Here is a translation of Armstrong for all of those who understand that he is too stupid to be read: OMGZORS HILLARY STILL HAZ A CHANCE PLZ

by sharris0512 2008-03-27 07:12PM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

the michigan primary was ruled unconstitutional.
there is no way that michigan is gonna get seated because of that.

though florida should get seated with half delegates

by theninjagoddess 2008-03-27 07:15PM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

Can we get a solid cite on Obama preventing the re-vote in Michigan and Florida?

by dmc2 2008-03-27 07:16PM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

there is no actual site, they just know it because Hillary said it, and since they want Hillary to win, the know she would never lie to them about the issue.

by TruthMatters 2008-03-27 07:18PM | 0 recs
by Molee 2008-03-27 07:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Here you go, BO not onboard

Checked the sources and none of them have anything proving that Obama has blocked the revote.

by dmc2 2008-03-27 07:32PM | 0 recs
Check again....

by Molee 2008-03-27 07:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Check again....

I looked at the hotair.com link since you said it was especially poignant. The money quote seems to be "Legislative leaders say the U.S. Sen. Barack Obama camp needs to agree to the repeat election before legislation is written, and Obama supporters say they must see the bill before signing off on the plan."

Assuming that's true, I've got to side with Sen. Obama. The Michigan legislature is already famous for screwing up the primary and I don't think anyone should blindly agree to support whatever crackpot scheme they dream up next. Honestly, why can't they just propose a bill and see if Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton are willing to sign off on it??? If either of them rejects a sensible proposal then we can start pointing the Finger of Blame.

Anyway, I don't think that one proves your case. I didn't bother looking at any of the others since I gather they're even less poignant.

by mazement 2008-03-27 08:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Check again....

Yeah, that's about as close to a "smoking gun" as you're going to find on these supposed "cites."

by dmc2 2008-03-27 09:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Here you go, BO not onboard

I thought it was verboten to cite right wing blogs as evidence on mydd?

by tessellated 2008-03-27 10:08PM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

Clinton ready to throwdown over Fl and MI?

Sounds like a job for "Rambo"

by Jeff Y 2008-03-27 07:16PM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

yes

by Jeff Y 2008-03-28 02:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Really?

Convenient that the uncommitted delegates from MI are left out of your explanation.  I suppose from the Clinton perspective, it disenfranchises voters who supported Clinton to leave them out, but those who voted against Clinton and Kucinich should just have no voice at all?  Even counting SOME of those uncommitteds would be reasonable, though you could also argue that all should belong to Obama.

To omit them from the discussion is irresponsible, and, given your thorough math, intentional.

by passionateprogressive 2008-03-27 07:16PM | 0 recs
Puerto Rico

re: Puerto Rico. It's much more a color blind society then say other latino groups from the mainland. They don't have the tension between latino and black that is somewhat more common here in the states. So Obama doesn't already have preordained baggage in that regard.

I wouldn't put too much stock in Puerto Rico for Hillary just yet. Although it does help her that so many Boricua live in nY.

by alex100 2008-03-27 07:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Puerto Rico

why would you assume Latina support for HRC is derived from an antipathy for the AA community?

have you been sitting in Wright's church for 20 years or what..

by ginaswo 2008-03-27 07:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Puerto Rico

but to answer your question directly, my "antipathy" comes as a latino. from my experiences living in Houston, Chicago, Florida and now New Haven.

I do not know Wright's church.

by alex100 2008-03-27 07:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Puerto Rico

Puerto Rico is not a color blind society per se. THe great majority of people there are a mix of African and European just like Obama. It will be really funny when all these HRC people that know nothing about the Latino community other than "they don't get a long with the Blacks" and "they vote for Hillary" see the primary night footage of all the smiling faces in San Juan who look just like Obama.

by TMP 2008-03-28 08:27AM | 0 recs
How many delegates does Edwards have?

I blogged here the other day that he had 31

and some said in response that Edwards only has 18 now??

Jerome, do you know which it is?

by Molee 2008-03-27 07:19PM | 0 recs
Re: How many delegates does Edwards have?
CNN is showing he has only 18
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primari es/results/candidates/#1803
by poserM 2008-03-27 07:53PM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

Here's how I explained it to my 6 year old.

(Feel free to swap HRC and Obama below if it makes you happy.)

McCain is cat poop.
Bush is horse \$hhhh!

Now even though our dog recommends cat poop as the most palatable kind of poop among those that eat poop, we do not recognize cat poop as food at all. While we might work harder to have fresh bread, we would never pick cat poop over stale bread, period.

The above comment was inspired by MyDD member - "itsthemedia"

by Veteran75 2008-03-27 07:30PM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

Didn't the Michigan primary get totally invalidated by a court ruling??

First the DNC says NO to Michigan . . . now the rules committee can't even use those votes if they wanted them!

Poor Ickes.

FYI - Edwards lost most of his Iowa Delegates to Obama.

by Veteran75 2008-03-27 07:34PM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

To quote Ron Burgandy, "I will not eat cat poop."

by rfahey22 2008-03-27 07:58PM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

but I do hope that McCain stays classy!

by Veteran75 2008-03-27 08:00PM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

This, I think, is more your lifeline Jerome than Clinton's... it seems to be your only way to keep the myth of a Clinton nomination alive.

MI/FL won't count as is unless they don't change anything.  It's as simple as that.  The only way they count if they actually switch something is if Obama decides that Clinton should be the nominee, since he will control the credentials committee.

by leshrac55 2008-03-27 07:31PM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

If the supers just say "Go Home Hillary" without addressing FL and MI all hell will break lose. I would also add just because the supers vote for Obama Hillary can fight on to the convention, she doesn;t have to drop out and she can fight in the credintials cmte

by rossinatl 2008-03-27 07:34PM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

If the Supers say "Go home Clinton," and all vote for Obama, MI/FL can be seated however you want.  They won't matter.

by thezzyzx 2008-03-27 07:39PM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

Why?  People here put such a premium on the idea that supers can vote however they want, so why should you be shocked if they vote for a reason that you don't like, or for that matter is completely arbitrary?

by rfahey22 2008-03-27 07:50PM | 0 recs
Exactly!

Good for her!

by MediaFreeze 2008-03-27 07:37PM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

This seems pretty desperate to me. I am sure this is one of those you see it as you want to see it kind of deals, but watching that video did not make me feel I had witnessed and been impacted by a winning strategy. Felt forced and there is just not enough concrete evidence that I have seen that Obama blocked revotes. OF course as the frontrunner he has more to lose and any person, Hillary included, would be wishing for no revotes. But to say he blocked them, I have not seen this demonstrated in a way that satisfies me.

by wasder 2008-03-27 07:42PM | 0 recs
This is PATHETIC

What is the purpose of posting one stupid diary after the other if you people do not engage in conversation? I asked about the Republican primary voters in MI and nobody responded. Now Jerome Armstrong wants to count the MI results. How on earth will be able to justify this? Honestly, can you convince the DNC about that? And if there is a revote, how do you deal with the voters that already participated in the Republican primary?
If they can have a revote in Florida, I think they should do it.

It is becoming painfully obvious that you do not care about the rules or the will of the people. You only care about winning. That's fine - but don't come here and lecture us about the will of the people. The first time the Clinton campaign raised the issue was a month ago. This screams hypocrisy and this is what the American people don't like. Maybe that explains the huge negative numbers of Hillary Clinton.

by ges69 2008-03-27 07:50PM | 0 recs
Re: This is PATHETIC

IIRC, Hillary first started raising the issue of FL/MI immediately after Super Tuesday, because she suddenly realized she was dead broke, behind, and about to lose a dozen states in a row.

by mattw 2008-03-27 08:07PM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

How exactly do MI and FL get seated at all when Dean is tilting the credentials committee towards not seating them, and Obama gets to pick >50% of the rest of the committee?

Also, if MI and FL were seated, how do you justify not giving Obama the uncommitted vote? That's an awfully small concession, given he likely would have split the vote there. If you add those back, that lead is back up over 100.

I don't think anyone denies a perfect storm of circumstances could theoretically give Clinton the delegates, but it is basically going to take 2/3 of: (1) very strong upcoming primary performances, (2) Seating MI and FL somehow (esp. whilst denying Obama the 55 from MI), (3) Superdelegate coup (by which I mean them overriding the pledged delegate count).

The only way she can pull it off and still have any chance of being elected in November requires (1). If she can give Obama the uncommitted Michigan vote and still have a lead in pledged delegates - or be tied - then it is possible, imo, for her to win without disaster.

If she has to deny Obama the uncommitted vote, it gets sketchy.

If denying Obama the uncommitted delegates from MI  doesn't even get her the pledged lead, she needs to go back to the Senate. Having the most tilted-toward-Clinton FL/MI seating still requiring the supers to overturn the pledged delegates is just absurd.

Frankly, people want some semblance of fairness, and giving Obama 0 delegates from MI cannot be called fair by any measure. And that's what the "Clinton closes the gap" scenario hinges upon.

Anyhow, my understanding is that the mechanics of the credentials committee means that FL and MI will not be seated unless: (1) Obama has the nomination completely locked up anyhow, or (2) Obama would rather seat them and let Hillary win than not seat them.  Given that their primaries were voided by the DNC through no fault of Obama's from the start, I don't see why he should feel any obligation to do that.

by mattw 2008-03-27 08:06PM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

As a commenter mentioned above, Bowers had a diary on this which everyone should probably read before taking this line of reasoning too much further.

http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?dia ryId=4798

Myth: Clinton can use Michigan and Florida to catch up
Fact: The Obama campaign will dictate what happens in Michigan and Florida

Some delegate totals include the Michigan and Florida delegations projected based on the result of the January primaries in those states. This is a mistake, and not because of any arguments about democracy or rules or whatever. Instead, it is a mistake simply because it is inaccurate. The fact is that there will be no revote in Michigan and Florida. The fact is that any pre-June deal on the Michigan and Florida delegations will have to be approved by the Barack Obama campaign. The fact is that after June 10th, the credentials committee takes jurisdiction over the matter. The fact is that Barack Obama will control the credentials committee, since its members are elected by pledged delegates. The fact is that even if the credentials committee submits a minority report on the Michigan and Florida delegations to the floor of the convention, Florida and Michigan delegates will not participate in that vote. In other words, the fact is that unless Clinton catches Barack Obama in non-Florida and Michigan delegates, then Obama will be able to dictate how Florida and Michigan are seated at the convention. As such, Clinton cannot use Florida and Michigan as a means to catch up unless the Obama campaign allows her to do so.

In other words, FL and MI WILL be seated. They just won't be seated in such a way that will lose Obama the nomination. And if you see a way that Clinton can prevent this, you have a responsibility to explain how.

by animated 2008-03-27 08:08PM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

This is just wrong. The DNConvention rules state the only penalty for a state holding a primary too soon is 50% of the delegates awarded will be seated, subject to appeal by the states in question. IOW, the delegates will be seated according to the Jan primaries or there will be hell to pay. Obama will have nothing to say about it.

by Nobama 2008-03-27 09:07PM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

Except by the decision by the rules committee (including Ickes) which stripped both states of their delegates.  That decision still stands.

by SoCalRefugee 2008-03-28 02:57AM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

In other words, Barry will hijack the nomination by blocking the will of the voters.

by nellre 2008-03-27 11:23PM | 0 recs
Clinton Is Desperate

Maybe Clinton's campaign should dig up Einstein or Heisenburg from their graves and see if they can come up with yet another hypothetical victory strategy. Not that it'll matter. The numbers are against them. Someone needs to screw up the courage to tell her that it's over, and that to the extent she keeps on going, she'll ruin what remains of her reputation in the party.

by cwilson 2008-03-27 09:16PM | 0 recs
Jerome is the best.

There, I said it.

Count ALL votes...and Hillary wins. Its pretty simple, really.

by Scan 2008-03-27 09:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Jerome is the best.

Only if you give Obama ZERO votes in MI.  That hardly seems fair, somehow.

by SoCalRefugee 2008-03-28 02:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Jerome is the best.

He should have thought of that before choosing to remove his name from the ballot.

by Scan 2008-03-28 08:06AM | 0 recs
Jerome is Clueless

This is really a lot simpler than all make it out to be....

The supers will not hang around twiddling their thumbs after June 3rd.  Once the remaining contests are done they will QUICKLY endorse their candidate and either Hill or Barry will hit the Magic Number of delegates and be the presumptive nominee.  The supers know that the party needs time to heal and focus entirely on Mccain so they won't fuck this up for November.

MI and FL will be 100% irrelevant in regards to actually deciding this thing.

by United7BigStatesofAmerica 2008-03-27 10:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Jerome is Clueless

Exactly right.  Now that the re-vote is dead, the MI/FL delegates will absolutely be seated as is.  And they will be absolutely irrelevant in picking the nominee.  He or She will have already been chosen in June, months before the credentials committee even gets started.

Reid has said it.
Pelosi has said it.

"things are being done"

by oxman 2008-03-28 03:30AM | 0 recs
Does this mean the DD Delegate Counter

Will finally be updated to show that Obama is ahead even if FL and MI are counted as-is (which, incidentally, will never happen unless the nomination already has been decided one way or another).

by Spirit of Fighting Bob 2008-03-27 11:11PM | 0 recs
If it wasn't FL+MI, it would be something else.

Remember how caucuses didn't matter, and how small states didn't matter, and red states that Democrats NEVER win don't matter...  There have been so many different ways of counting the votes to make it so that Hillary wins.

And so I wonder, if the shoe were on the other foot, if FL+MI hurt Hillary instead of helped her, would she be just as outraged?  Somehow, I don't think so.

I don't think Obama should rush to do anything to extend the lifespan of the Clinton campaign.  They have broadcast the fact that they're going to drag it out to the convention no matter what.  FL+MI is just the latest excuse for that.

Nobody but Hillary would count the FL+MI votes the way they are now, with only one name on the ballot in Michigan, as if it was a real election.  Yet trying to bend heaven and earth to create a compromise solution for elections in both states just gives Hillary two or three more months to engage in the kind of destructive campaigning that she has engaged in to the detriment of both her and Obama (according to the latest poll numbers).

Hillary already has a backup plan.  She says that the superdelegates, and even the ELECTED delegates, can change their mind anytime they want, so even if she loses every delegate in every state from here to the end, she can always fall back on that plan.  If the Clintons can propose and support anything that awful and undemocratic, they should quit pretending that they are worried about the votes of the people.  They're only worried about themselves.

by Dumbo 2008-03-28 12:13AM | 0 recs
Assume a pony...

Including MI & FL, Clinton is only behind in pledged-delegates by 46-56 delegates...

I too would have preferred some sort of revote option, for instance a MI revote and the 'half-Nelson' solution to FL.

But it seems that Obama's side has judged correctly: since FL doesn't want a revote, and the reasons why it isn't happening in MI seem to be deep in the weeds from most voters' perspective, he doesn't really have to give the Clinton side anything.

Any revote argument by Team Hillary will first be hit by FL citizens' opposition to a revote, and then will get lost in a volley of charges and countercharges over why the MI revote effort really failed, and then a powerful SEP field will descend on the whole situation, rendering it invisible to most people.

Unless and until one can make either the voters in the remaining Dem primaries or the Dem electorate nationally care about the FL/MI situation - and agree that Obama's the villain - then there's no ground to be gained here.

And for the reasons I've just mentioned, that's nearly impossible.  Not to mention, voters in upcoming primary states will want to hear what Hillary and Obama are going to do to keep them from losing their houses and their jobs, not about some bit of party infighting.

Pretending it's otherwise is wishing for a pony.  But there ain't no pony, just a pile of horseshit.

by RT 2008-03-28 02:16AM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

If Obama attains the nomination by having blocked delegate representation from Michigan and Florida that is reflective of voters' wishes there, his nomination will be illegitimate. I will then write in Hillary's name in November.

by Bob H 2008-03-28 02:21AM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

How can the MI delegation reflect the voters' will when it is composed of "Hillary" and "undeclared" delegates?

by SoCalRefugee 2008-03-28 03:01AM | 0 recs
He'd be well in the lead anyway

Since he'd be well in the lead anyway, and even if Hillary reversed the trend in the polls and made PA her largest margin win of the entire campaign (including her home state), she'd still be behind in pledged delegates by too much to catch Barack Obama (especially since he'd be favored in all but two of the contests after that).

by PantsB 2008-03-28 04:34AM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

I actually love it when she gets all crazy like this. The more she says shit about a credentials fight or her supporters threaten Nancy Pelosi, the closer we get to a cascade of superdelegates hopping aboard the Obama express.

Keep up the good work, Hillary.

by bookish 2008-03-28 03:17AM | 0 recs
MI and FL broke the rules

It was the MI and FL Hillary supporters who pushed to move up the dates of their respective contests knowing full well that they were breaking the DNC rules and risking that their contests would be nullified by the DNC.  They were intentionally playing "chicken" with Howard Dean and so far they are losing.  The courts will rule in the DNC's favor because primaries are governed by party rules, not state or federal laws.

My brother lives in FL and voted for Obama, but a lot of voters did not vote in FL and MI because 1) they didn't know the primary dates had moved or 2) were told their votes wouldn't be counted.  It looks to me that Hillary wants to intentionally disenfranchise Obama voters who didn't vote in those contests.

This behavior by the Clintons and the Clintonistas just proves to me that Hillary and her supporters are Republicans in Dem clothing.

by Terry from Killingly CT 2008-03-28 03:59AM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

I just realized what this post really is.

It is a desire to believe that Hillary isn't just trying to help McCain win.

It is a desire to believe that she is really a democrat and that she wants a democrat to win in the fall even if it isn't her.

You have to know that that isn't going to work out, and really so does Hillary.

However I don't think Hillary is intentionally trying to help McCain.  I just don't think she knows how to lose gracefully.

by TerraFF 2008-03-28 04:30AM | 0 recs
Counting MI would be insane

given that Obama's name wasn't on the ballot.  Florida's a (very) slightly different story.

But your math falls apart without MI.

by Garret 2008-03-28 05:01AM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

Hillary is a Democrat.  Her party (and ours) has been taken over by Clinton-hating, Reagan-loving forces collectively known as team Obama.  This is the party the MSM has dreamed of for sixteen years--one that disowns the Clintons, whom the MSM itself could not destroy despite Ken Starr inquiries and impeachment.

If Michigan and Florida were seated--those voters knew very well whom they were voting for, despite the claims of those one Obama planet--Hillary, by virtue of her big state victories, would already be the nominee.  Howard Dean's "party" changed the rules so that winner-take-all would be a thing of the past, and thus have nothing whatever to do with how the Electoral College chooses a president.

The Obama folk cannot count Michigan and Florida, and they cannot give new primaries, inasmuch as they would still lose both, and thus reinforce the fact that they cannot win major states aside from Illinois and that very close Missouri.

The path for Obama is only by disenfranchisement, and by virtue of success in Red State America and very unrepresentative caucuses.

The Democratic Party, in its zeal to Obama coronation, is attempting to deny the will of its base.  He is the nominee only if all those cross-overs in Red States count more than lifetime Democrats in Blue States.  That is a very lethal nominee--especially if he is unvetted and with powerful White-damning Reverend Wright videos yet to be seen.

My three-generation family of Democrats is opting for McCain in the fall, if Obama is nominated.  I was never more proud of my own key bell-weather Ohio than when it flatly rejected Obama, despite his fawning media, favorable pollsters and huge money advantage.

Obama was a no-sale in Ohio in the primary and will be a no-sale in Ohio in the fall.

The Democratic Party can jump off the landslide-loss cliff with team Obama in the fall, or for a last time pause and go with the last Democratic presidential winners the party had--and will for some time--the Clintons.

by lambros 2008-03-28 05:10AM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

I welcome and encourage you to leave the Democratic party and please make sure to collect your dixiecrat/Reagan Democrat relatives on the way out.

by TMP 2008-03-28 08:17AM | 0 recs
let it go...

...michigan and florida did not follow the rules, and therefore should not have an influence over the outcome.

If they want to follow the rules, the state parties can hold caucuses.  As for the costs, at the caucus I attended, a hat was passed around the room to pay for the caucus; we more than offset how much it took to print out the voter register rolls.

The state parties really have no excuse for their behavior.

Also- there really is no such thing as a popular vote count except in states that held primaries;  Since caucuses are not included in this parameter, I am not sure how this really is an indicator of too much except that it currently agrres with the pledged delegate.

This is a delegate race and really nothing else.

by d 2008-03-28 05:15AM | 0 recs
I try...I really try

To get through the logic hard core Clinton supporters twist to get to some point where Hillary is the winner without serious questions being raised about the validity and fairness of such a win.  Sure supers can back her, but going against the best measure of lead in the primary race is really, really unappealing.

So facts (facts!) as they are now - Obama is ahead big in pledged delegates (essentially an insurmountable lead), ahead in states won, popular vote (probably aslo insurmountable but probably much more open to chance), caucuses won and I believe primaries won (Im willing to be corrected).  And Florida and Michigan do not count in any fashion period (facts are pesky).

So Clintons arguments are - Clinton won big dem states, won beauty contest Florida (and would probably win Florida again with a re-vote) and won Ohio (a very good win) soundly.  And will keep it close enough that when all is said and done Obama still wont have enough pledged delegates at the end to secure the nomination without super delegates pushing him over top.

So it seems to me the Clinton argument is pledged delegates dont count anymore since they alone cant deliver a knock out blow for either (especially those from pesky red states, caucus states and states not named Ohio - OK Im snarking a bit, sorry).  We are in a new game now and what has transpired to date doesnt count and only the way forward is the basis to use and its really supers that count in the end.

So the Clinton supporters are basically saying, the supers will choose Clinton because shes better and Obamas a mean, nasty, hopeful guy who will sell your children to arabs for smokes and he'll say all mean and nasty things about the US and not wear a flag lapel pin (sorry, I try not to snark but its tough).  So since the supers can give it to Clinton, they will because shes better so pledged delegates mean nothing.

So if pledged delegates are meaningless, why do Clinton supporters torture logic so much to try and take at best mostly flawed Florida and Michigan election results which are invalid per the rules and fluff them up and try and reduce the pledged delegate counts?  What does it matter if Clinton is behind 500 in pledged delegates, the supers are super smart and will give it to Clinton no matter what.  Since supers shouldnt use pledged delegate leads in their consideration, why care what you do or do not get from Florida and Michigan?

So seriously, snark aside, what does it matter for Florida or Michigan?  Lets say they count as is (a travesty, but for arguments sake).  And by count I mean they become sanctioned and official results.  It basically ties the game and it is as it was before, in the supers hands.  So whats the difference?  Since Clitnon supporters posit Clintons a shoe in as supers will ingore pledged delegates anyway.

My take is Im sure supers are smart enough people to right now factor in to their thinking the impacts of a Florida and Michigan revote (or non re-vote) and see what that would do to the pledged delegate and popular vote total.  Im sure they would say "Florida is probably Clintons by less than 10% in a straight up contest and Michigan would be a toss up - with some showing an Obama win and others a Clinton win".  So the net effect from factoring that in still has Obama in the lead for pledged delegates.

So Clinton supporters, why do Florida and Michigan pledged delegates count?  Per your arguments, pledged delegates shouldnt be part of the reasoning supers use to decide (look at Clintons lovely heavy hitter big dollar backers making that case to Pelosi) and under all current scenarios, its in the supers hands?  I mean, why even have any more contests (Im half serious on that)?  In no way is this not in the supers hands anyway, so why not have them just call it now?

The funny part about all your bitching and moaning and making such a fuss with the weakest of weak arguments in your support, you only go to show how valuable the pledged delegate lead actually is and how the size of the current lead is really insurmountable.  So in some ways you are burying yourselves with your own messed up logic.  You are backhandedly giving credence to pledged delegate counts and the fact that trying to slim the deficit to 'something more manageable and less extreme', you might have a better case of influencing supers.  You just keep showing how far behind you are and how over this race is.  So which is it - pledged delegates count or not?  Are they important or not?  Which side will Clinton take today?  Which is politically expedient?

I will always say, I am not afraid of Michigan and Florida, I would love a fully contested re-vote (preference with delegate number punishment - but even then if not, so be it).  I may be in the minority but most other Obama supporters I know instinctively feel the same way.  I do believe no solution is 100% fair though and I have no clue as to how to fix it.  But I firmly believe the less weirdness outstanding in the end of the primary process, the more we dems can be satisfied with any result.  I have also said that if Clitnon kicks Obamas rear in the remaining contests (with no anti-dem or pro-repub campaigning) then I think Clinton would have a strong argument to make on momentum.  So is it 100% over - never say never.  Do most avenues for a Clinton victory look ugly and unsavory to me - yes.

But as Bill said, its time to sadlle up.

by pattonbt 2008-03-28 05:40AM | 0 recs
I try...I really try

To get through the logic hard core Clinton supporters twist to get to some point where Hillary is the winner without serious questions being raised about the validity and fairness of such a win.  Sure supers can back her, but going against the best measure of lead in the primary race is really, really unappealing.

So facts (facts!) as they are now - Obama is ahead big in pledged delegates (essentially an insurmountable lead), ahead in states won, popular vote (probably aslo insurmountable but probably much more open to chance), caucuses won and I believe primaries won (Im willing to be corrected).  And Florida and Michigan do not count in any fashion period (facts are pesky).

So Clintons arguments are - Clinton won big dem states, won beauty contest Florida (and would probably win Florida again with a re-vote) and won Ohio (a very good win) soundly.  And will keep it close enough that when all is said and done Obama still wont have enough pledged delegates at the end to secure the nomination without super delegates pushing him over top.

So it seems to me the Clinton argument is pledged delegates dont count anymore since they alone cant deliver a knock out blow for either (especially those from pesky red states, caucus states and states not named Ohio - OK Im snarking a bit, sorry).  We are in a new game now and what has transpired to date doesnt count and only the way forward is the basis to use and its really supers that count in the end.

So the Clinton supporters are basically saying, the supers will choose Clinton because shes better and Obamas a mean, nasty, hopeful guy who will sell your children to arabs for smokes and he'll say all mean and nasty things about the US and not wear a flag lapel pin (sorry, I try not to snark but its tough).  So since the supers can give it to Clinton, they will because shes better so pledged delegates mean nothing.

So if pledged delegates are meaningless, why do Clinton supporters torture logic so much to try and take at best mostly flawed Florida and Michigan election results which are invalid per the rules and fluff them up and try and reduce the pledged delegate counts?  What does it matter if Clinton is behind 500 in pledged delegates, the supers are super smart and will give it to Clinton no matter what.  Since supers shouldnt use pledged delegate leads in their consideration, why care what you do or do not get from Florida and Michigan?

So seriously, snark aside, what does it matter for Florida or Michigan?  Lets say they count as is (a travesty, but for arguments sake).  And by count I mean they become sanctioned and official results.  It basically ties the game and it is as it was before, in the supers hands.  So whats the difference?  Since Clitnon supporters posit Clintons a shoe in as supers will ingore pledged delegates anyway.

My take is Im sure supers are smart enough people to right now factor in to their thinking the impacts of a Florida and Michigan revote (or non re-vote) and see what that would do to the pledged delegate and popular vote total.  Im sure they would say "Florida is probably Clintons by less than 10% in a straight up contest and Michigan would be a toss up - with some showing an Obama win and others a Clinton win".  So the net effect from factoring that in still has Obama in the lead for pledged delegates.

So Clinton supporters, why do Florida and Michigan pledged delegates count?  Per your arguments, pledged delegates shouldnt be part of the reasoning supers use to decide (look at Clintons lovely heavy hitter big dollar backers making that case to Pelosi) and under all current scenarios, its in the supers hands?  I mean, why even have any more contests (Im half serious on that)?  In no way is this not in the supers hands anyway, so why not have them just call it now?

The funny part about all your bitching and moaning and making such a fuss with the weakest of weak arguments in your support, you only go to show how valuable the pledged delegate lead actually is and how the size of the current lead is really insurmountable.  So in some ways you are burying yourselves with your own messed up logic.  You are backhandedly giving credence to pledged delegate counts and the fact that trying to slim the deficit to 'something more manageable and less extreme', you might have a better case of influencing supers.  You just keep showing how far behind you are and how over this race is.  So which is it - pledged delegates count or not?  Are they important or not?  Which side will Clinton take today?  Which is politically expedient?

I will always say, I am not afraid of Michigan and Florida, I would love a fully contested re-vote (preference with delegate number punishment - but even then if not, so be it).  I may be in the minority but most other Obama supporters I know instinctively feel the same way.  I do believe no solution is 100% fair though and I have no clue as to how to fix it.  But I firmly believe the less weirdness outstanding in the end of the primary process, the more we dems can be satisfied with any result.  I have also said that if Clitnon kicks Obamas rear in the remaining contests (with no anti-dem or pro-repub campaigning) then I think Clinton would have a strong argument to make on momentum.  So is it 100% over - never say never.  Do most avenues for a Clinton victory look ugly and unsavory to me - yes.

But as Bill said, its time to sadlle up.

by pattonbt 2008-03-28 05:41AM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

Don't forget, the Clintons are lawyers (OK so are the Obamas and myself for that matter).  However, it takes one to know one and what I see here is legal posturing that characterizes someone who is going to take it to the mat in a hard fought contest. I can't see the Clintons ever voluntarily admitting defeat.  They won't bow out until they are forced out by the final verdict, which will not take place until the convention. In the meantime they are pulling every legalistic trick in the book. They will ultimately go down in flames but will go down fighting.  The issue is, will they take the Party down with them?  I don't think they care any more.

by MikeWalk 2008-03-28 06:13AM | 0 recs
Hillary's threats are to be VP

All these threats to the convention are so that she will force Obama to make her VP.

by chatters71 2008-03-28 06:33AM | 0 recs
Re: FACT CHECK JEROME ARMSTRONG

Everything that Jerome has stated in his post can easily be debunked.

1) Puerto Rico is not Texas or California.  How many Mexicans do you know from PR?  PR is full of BLACK latinos and they aren't that excited about Hillary.

2)  HRC does not have a lifeline and the RCP average that Jerome quotes even says that it doesn't include many of the caucus states that Obama won.  Even if it were to include those totals it would be impossible for her to catch Obama in total vote count

3) Obama is not blocking any legitimate and fair re-vote.  Please explain to me how re-voting that doesn't allow all to participate is fair and legitimate.

4) Florida is a bit more complicated and at the end of the day, the delegates will be seated.

by kristannab 2008-03-28 06:54AM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

Somebody should tell Howard Kurtz in the Washington Post about Jerome:

"I've read some pieces here and there saying it's not impossible for Hillary to prevail, or that there's no reason for her to fold her tent. But if there are commentators strongly pushing her candidacy at the moment, they've mostly escaped my notice."

by wasder 2008-03-28 07:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Infatuation

Jerome,

Infatuation is not love. You are blinded, you are not seeing what H Rodham Clinton is doing to the country and her party by her crazy behaviour and that of her supporters.

The Clintons are dangerous; wasn't it W Jefferson Clinton who was responsible, through his support for sanctions, for the genocidal death of half a million Iraqi children under the age of 5?

And now we have to put up with his racism [South Carolina], her lies [Bosnia], Carvell's 'Judas' remark, Ferraro's disgraceful language, and a whole load of detritus from those that are somehow infatuated by the name Clinton.

Senator Casey is right to endorse Senator Obama in Pennsylvania; Senator Leahy is right to call for her withdrawal.

Its over. She has lost. She will not be the nominee. She will never be President. The Clintons need to get off the stage before a lo of  rotten vegetables and fruit start to appear all around them.

Jerome. Its over.

Malcolm

by malc19ken 2008-03-28 09:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Infatuation

The Clintons are dangerous; wasn't it W Jefferson Clinton who was responsible, through his support for sanctions, for the genocidal death of half a million Iraqi children under the age of 5?...

B0Y

YOU ARE SCUM

by John Wesley Hardin was a Friend to the Poor 2008-03-28 11:32PM | 0 recs
Wow...Fox AND Joe Klein in one post

Jerome, I imagine the sequel to the book you somehow wrote with Markos will be called "Rebuilding the Gate With The Same Old Rotten Materials"? It's funny, in the old days, I used to come to Mydd as a more flexible version of Daily Kos (I suppose Browers and Stoller's departure took that with them), but when you use a Fox feed and link to Joe Klein, the days of being relevant as a progressive and/or game-changing politico are clearly over. Everything you say in this post doesn't matter once you cross that line, you turn your own post into concern trolling. This whole blog, in fact, could be renamed "My Concern Troll". I suppose this is the kind of comment you meant when you said you were going to be stricter about who gets to post here...my, how things have changed. I guess you'll just have to delete us argumentative folks. I'm sure old Joe Klein would love to have an account, though...have you called David Broder yet? I'm sure he has some flimsy predictions to post...

by argghh 2008-03-28 10:27AM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

What a load of steaming crap! The first thing you want us to accept is that Clinton gets 55% of Michigan's delegates and Obama gets none?? Oh yeah - that's gonna happen.

by Shiloh 2008-03-28 10:44AM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

sounds like all hell is going to break loose no matter who we choose.

even the "safe" choice of drafting Gore is going to anger some people.  Not me. I think that is exactly what we should do. It will totally shock the Republicans.

by WolfmanJack 2008-03-28 10:55AM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy
Will folks still say bring it to the Convention if Obama has the most pledged Delegates.
Obama has the pop vote.
If Obama has the Supers...
prior to the Convention and Obama has the votes needed without MI and FL?
This is much more likely than
Jerome's World (and others) Scenario.
by nogo war 2008-03-28 02:01PM | 0 recs
Re: The lifeline strategy

Sad how bitter the Hillary supporters are. Ya see she was promised by God to be King and the evil Obamaites have stolen her crown. So what is she signed a pledge and agreed to what occurred in MI and FL, only to cry foul now that she neesd them? So what if she lied about her involvement in SCHIP, the Northern Ireland accord, Bosnia and NAFTA? So what if she has a lifetime of lies and thievery. So what if she is more like the republicans her supporters claim to loathe? Who needs honesty and integrity.....they really are unnecessary traits.

Hillary is revealing herself for what she always has been....a cold, calculating greedy politician. James Carville called Richardson Judas? Well my friends that makes Hillary Pontius Pilate.....

by adb67 2008-03-28 02:57PM | 0 recs