Obama Supressed Voter Choices in 1996 Election

by Vox Populi, Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 12:37:45 PM EST

I just came across a serious allegation against Illinois Senator Barrack Obama.  In his first run for State Senate in 1996, Obama's campaign team challenged the signatures on the nominating petitions of all his Democratic rivals.  In the end, only Obama was left.  He won his first primary election by default, after a fair share of the dirty politics that makes Chicago famous.

CHICAGO - The day after New Year's 1996, operatives for Barack Obama filed into a barren hearing room of the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners.

There they began the tedious process of challenging hundreds of signatures on the nominating petitions of state Sen. Alice Palmer, the longtime progressive activist from the city's South Side. And they kept challenging petitions until every one of Obama's four Democratic primary rivals was forced off the ballot.

Fresh from his work as a civil rights lawyer and head of a voter registration project that expanded access to the ballot box, Obama launched his first campaign for the Illinois Senate saying he wanted to empower disenfranchised citizens.

But in that initial bid for political office, Obama quickly mastered the bare-knuckled arts of Chicago electoral politics. His overwhelming legal onslaught signaled his impatience to gain office, even if that meant elbowing aside an elder stateswoman like Palmer. http://www.popmatters.com/pm/news/articl e/32738/obama-forced-opponents-from-race -in-first-campaign/

Obama himself addressed the issue, saying in part he felt troubled by enacting barriers to voter choice, but:

"I gave some thought to . . . should people be on the ballot even if they didn't meet the requirements," he said. "My conclusion was that if you couldn't run a successful petition drive, then that raised questions in terms of how effective a representative you were going to be."

He limited the people's choices in order to watch out for their interest.  One of the choices Obama successfully got off the primary ballot was incumbent State Senator, Alice Palmer.  Had she been on the ballot, Obama would have likely been trounced.

Had Palmer survived Obama's challenge, he would have faced the daunting task of taking on an incumbent senator. Palmer's elimination marked the first of several fortuitous political moments in Obama's electoral success: He won the 2004 primary and general elections for U.S. Senate after tough challengers imploded when their messy divorce files were unsealed.

Apparantly Senator Obama had reservations at the time:

"He wondered if we should knock everybody off the ballot. How would that look?" said Ronald L. Davis, the paid Obama campaign consultant who filed objections to Obama's rivals as a 13th District citizen.

"I don't think he thought it was, you know, sporting," said Will Burns, a 1996 Obama campaign volunteer who assisted with the petition challenges. "He wasn't very proud of it."

The challenges stemmed from an agreement between Palmer and Obama.  Palmer decided to run for Congress, facing off against Emil Jones and Jesse Jackson Jr.  She had suggested Obama as a replacement for her.  But her bid failed, and she decided to run for her seat again.  That incensed Obama.

"I am disappointed that she's decided to go back on her word to me," he said.

While this is only a snapshot of Obama, the article is strong and shows us the genesis of Barack Obama the public officer.  This 'unconventional' politician used quite conventional methods to restrict the choice of voters in his district.

I live in Indiana.  We don't require nominating petitions.  If you want to run, you run and the people get to choose.  I realize he played by the rules, but the rules are as corrupt as the people he consorts with.

Just this year, Obama rode to the side of uber-corrupt Chicago Alderman Dorothy Tillman, endorsing her in her thankfully unsuccssful reelection race.

More than that, what it shows is Obama still has not had to face off in a competitive election.  By eliminating candidates from the ballot, to winning because the Democratic front-runner had a messy divorce situation erupt, Obama has not had to face a serious opponent.  We'll see just how he stands up to the heat of a real campaign against Hillary Clinton and John Edwards.  

This time without the option of removing them from the ballot.




Tags: Barack Obama, dirty politics (all tags)

Display:
Permalink :: 197 Comments :: Post a Comment


sounds like Palmer was playing tricks (3.00 / 1)

and got burned by trying to enter the race at the last moment.  I bet she was surprised that it didn't work.


New Jersey politics and news
by John DE on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 12:55:14 PM EST

Dirty Chicago Politics (2.20 / 5)

... From a Chicago pol.  Surpirse Surprise.  Obama isn't different from any of them.  The Obama many here support is a myth, an illusion.


by dpANDREWS on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 12:58:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

not quite the same as 100 g's of cattle futures (1.00 / 1)

happy astroturfing


by jforshaw on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 01:07:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

But Saint Edwards is (none / 0)

different I presume?


The history of the left is a history of purists betraying the progressive movement so that they can feel good about their righteous selves.
by Populism2008 on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 01:33:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"Saint Hillary" I should say (none / 0)

I forgot that you aren't an E guy.


The history of the left is a history of purists betraying the progressive movement so that they can feel good about their righteous selves.
by Populism2008 on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 01:34:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: But Saint Edwards is (none / 0)

dp doesn't care for Edwards.


"And so in the place of the palace of privilege, we seek to build a temple out of faith and hope and charity."-FDR
by jallen on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 01:34:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

So you admit Obama's tactics (3.00 / 2)

were bad, but seek to defend him by saying Edwards does it too?  Is that your position?

First, any evidence?
Second, I thought BarackObama was all about new politics.


by littafi on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 02:04:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So you admit Obama's tactics (3.00 / 1)

This woman cheated to get on the ballot at the expense of Obama. He did the right thing, which was not to take it lying down. He merely enforced the rules--how is this dirty tricks?


Never separate the life you live from the words you speak. -Sen. Paul Wellstone (Minnesota)
by Max Fletcher on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 03:24:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So you admit Obama's tactics (3.00 / 2)

She didn't cheat.  Getting nominating petitions has a lot of people involved.  Mistakes are made.  Some of the people you hire do cheat.  However the question is whether there was any past practice of challenging the petitions.  Admittedly Obama followed the letter of the law.  What he didn't follow is the spirit of the Democratic primary.  He used a technical process to disenfranchise people.  If this had been a regular practice then all is fair.  If she wasn't expecting a challenge she might not have ensured to get a lot more than the minimum required.

The question is whether this is the "new politics" that Obama is talking about?


I am an Edwards Democrat. Visit EENR blog for Progressives
by pioneer111 on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 04:29:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So you admit Obama's tactics (none / 0)

From the Chicago Tribune:

"Just in time for the Dec. 18, 1995, filing deadline, Palmer submitted 1,580 signatures--about twice the minimum required. That day,Obama lashed out at her, telling the Tribune she had pressured him to withdraw."


by Baldrick on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 05:34:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So you admit Obama's tactics (none / 0)

I just glanced at the story but how did she cheat if she was the incumbent State Senator?


BlueSunbelt.Com Netroots for the Sunbelt states robwire.com My personal blog
by robliberal on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 05:26:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Can't be much on Edwards . (none / 0)

If there was they would have trotted it out in '04.   Edwards looks pretty much like a straight arrow.


by dpANDREWS on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 02:59:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Rebuttal Diary by Curt Matlock (3.00 / 4)

has been posted:


Obama Plays Hardball to Win 96 Primary

by Curt Matlock, Sat Jun 02, 2007

I would be much obliged if the readers can visit and read the rebuttal, and consider recommending that diary. Thank you!


by NuevoLiberal on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 05:59:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Rebuttal Diary by Curt Matlock (3.00 / 3)

Thank you. I knew this was total BS when I first read the title. These jokers are desperate.


"I don't believe in this can't do, won't do, won't even try style of politics. Yes We Can!" ~ Barack Obama
by ObamaEdwards2008 on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 08:56:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Rebuttal Diary by Curt Matlock (none / 0)

They got nothin' I tell ya.  Nothin' but liars.


No Quacks, please.
by noquacks on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 09:47:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

So let me get this straight... (2.85 / 7)

Palmer tried to side-step the rules. Obama insisted she follow the rules....

And this is what you call 'dirty politics?'

Will wonders never cease. Every time you guys come up with another petty hit piece on Obama I think that's as low as you can possibly go--but each time you prove me wrong.

Well, let's just add this one to the growing list of petty Obama hit pieces.


by Mystylplx on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 01:21:03 PM EST

Re: So let me get this straight... (2.20 / 5)

They are rules that Obama allegedly opposes because they are restrictions on ballot access and voter choice.  In Indiana, which is a much less progressive state than Obama's, I can run for office without a petition.

If it wasn't 'dirty,' then Obama wouldn't have taken issue with it at the time.  Recall that he expressed concern with using legal challenges to eliminate ALL of his opponents, but did it nonetheless.

This isn't about hit pieces, which I believe is an over-used phrase.  This is about showing the man behind the mask, the real Obama.  The ambitious, "unconventional" man of the people who uses conventional means to elminate opposition.


The sharpest criticism often goes hand in hand with the deepest idealism and love of country. ~RFK
by Vox Populi on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 01:26:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Opposing rules means (none / 0)

that you try to change them. It doesn't mean you don't play by them in the meantime. To unilaterally do so would mean political suicide. He also advocates public financing for elections, but that doesn't mean he refuses to raise money now.


by Mystylplx on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 01:34:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Opposing rules means (3.00 / 2)

Exactly.  You have to live by the rules as they are, not the ones you want.  If you live in Chicago or NY or a number of other places, you need to get a certain number of valid signatures to appear on the ballot.  If you can't, then you don't belong on the ballot.  PERIOD.  END OF STORY.

I'd be shocked if Obama's opponents didn't also challenge his signatures but he had enough for him to stay on the ballot.  Nothing in this post suggests that Obama did anything illegal or immoral.  He used the rules that existed to his advantage just like I would expect any other candidate to do.  


by John Mills on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 06:11:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Then why doesn't Obama (3.00 / 1)

Take money from lobbyists?  That's within the rules, too, but he's declined to take money from lobbyists.  Clearly, when he believes something is wrong, he doesn't do it, whether it's legal or not.

So, if he believes that these hurdles were wrong, why did he push them, when he didn't have to?  Or does he believe that they're okay?


by Drew on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 07:30:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What a pile of shit (3.00 / 1)

This is just a hit piece.  Obama used the rules to his advantage.  I'm shocked, shocked.

What I am MORE shocked at is when someone DOES NOT use the rules to his advantage.  I am so tired of pussy-whipped Dems.  This is a new view of Obama, and one which favorably impresses me.


by dataguy on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 09:20:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So let me get this straight... (none / 0)

This is about showing the man behind the mask, the real Obama.  The ambitious, "unconventional" man of the people who uses conventional means to elminate opposition.

You say this like it's a bad thing... it's really not.


by Korha on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 01:35:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama Uses Law in 1996 Election (3.00 / 6)

You certainly haven't provided a balanced view of the article you cite. From the article, which was originally headlined "Obama knows his way around a ballot" when it appeared in the Chicago Tribune (emphasis mine):

In the early 1990s, Chicago's 13th Legislative District was served in the Illinois Senate by Palmer, who was working as a community organizer in the area when Obama was growing up in Hawaii and Indonesia. She risked her safe seat to run for Congress and touted Obama as a suitable successor, according to news accounts and interviews.

But when she got clobbered in that November 1995 special congressional race, Palmer supporters asked Obama to fold his campaign so she could easily retain her state Senate seat.

Obama not only refused to step aside, he filed challenges that nullified Palmer's hastily gathered nominating petitions, forcing her to withdraw.

The true story seems to be that Palmer went back on her word to Obama when she lost her race for Congress. Instead of honoring her word to Obama she decided to try to salvage her career by running again for the State seat she'd been ready to abandon by running for Congress. Obama already had a campaign for that seat in place and refused to quit.

Then Palmer's congressional bid collapsed. On Nov. 28, 1995, she placed a distant third behind political powerhouses Jesse Jackson Jr., who holds that congressional seat today, and current state Senate President Emil Jones Jr.

Palmer didn't fade quietly away. Citing an "outpouring" of support, she upended the political landscape by switching gears and deciding to run in the March 1996 primary for her state Senate seat.

After finishing a distant third in the congressional race Palmer tried to ensure she had no opponent in the state seat that Obama was running for. Obama then refused to go along with her attempt to grease her wheels to victory by staying in the race. Given the fact she'd tried to force him out of the race I think his decision to play hardball at that point reflects well on him.

"I hadn't publicly announced," he said. "But what I said was that once I announce, and I have started to raise money, and gather supporters, hire staff and opened up an office, signed a lease, then it's going to be very difficult for me to step down. And she gave me repeated assurances that she was in [the congressional race] to stay."

Obama "did say that to me," Palmer says now. "And I certainly did say that I wasn't going to run. There's no question about that."

Do you think Obama would fold like Gore did in 2000 and Kerry did in 2004? Doesn't look likely from this anecdote. I'm glad to see Obama is a Democratic politician who is going to fight for every vote and use every legal means to win elections. That's what we need in 2008.


by Curt Matlock on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 01:27:40 PM EST

Re: Obama Uses Law in 1996 Election (2.33 / 3)

What I find interesting is that Republicans are the ones who use legal challenges to intimidate and supress voter intent.  That's why we now have ID laws and the like, because if you can't win at the ballot box you use the rules to prevent yourself from having competition.

I would feel more confident if Obama had to run against Palmer and won than I do now, knowing he used supression tactics.


The sharpest criticism often goes hand in hand with the deepest idealism and love of country. ~RFK
by Vox Populi on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 01:31:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You are a fool (1.00 / 1)

Rules cut both ways, you moron.  A person should know how to use them to his advantage.  That's the way you play the game.

Go home and study up on politics.  You know nothing about it.


by dataguy on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 09:22:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Uses Law in 1996 Election (3.00 / 4)

I can't agree with you, Curt.  It would be one thing if it was a Republican he was facing, but he was facing other Democrats, and he didn't only do it to the outgoing incumbent, but he made it so that he ran unopposed-

There they began the tedious process of challenging hundreds of signatures on the nominating petitions of state Sen. Alice Palmer, the longtime progressive activist from the city's South Side. And they kept challenging petitions until every one of Obama's four Democratic primary rivals was forced off the ballot.

Now, I can definitely see why what he did was legitimate.  However, this sounds like Obama's promise to not take money from lobbyists, but soliciting their wives.  It doesn't make me less likely to support him, however, and he's still my choice if Edwards loses Iowa.


"And so in the place of the palace of privilege, we seek to build a temple out of faith and hope and charity."-FDR
by jallen on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 01:40:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Uses Law in 1996 Election (3.00 / 2)

If Palmer's petitions were in order there wouldn't have been an issue.

How is it that none of those challengers had petitions that could stand up to scrutiny?

Still I'd have to agree that the incident does show that Obama isn't pure. But that's news only to those naive enough to believe anyone running for President isn't a ruthless SOB. Politicians at this level just don't rise that high by living in a Jimmy Stewart world. That's why I have to snicker everytime I see Hillary being slammed for being "ambitious". Gosh who would have thought a Senator and Presidential candidate is ambitious? LOL!

Bottom line is that Obama didn't fold when Palmer went back on her word and proceeded to use legal means to win. Spinning it as some character issue just falls flat when you consider that none of these candidates are saints. For me it does more to answer the question about whether he "is tough enough" than it does to discredit him in any way.


by Curt Matlock on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 01:53:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Uses Law in 1996 Election (3.00 / 1)

He had 8 years in the Senate during which he could have introduced legislation to remove the petition barrier.  Yet he chose not to.  Had he done that, I would have much more respect for him in this matter.


The sharpest criticism often goes hand in hand with the deepest idealism and love of country. ~RFK
by Vox Populi on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 01:57:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Uses Law in 1996 Election (3.00 / 1)

It does show something about his character- that he will use the rules, including those he sets for himself, like the lobbyist money thing, and play them, not just play by them.  Just because it is technically okay doesn't make it okay with me.

On the ambition thing, anyone who doesn't think that all of the three top Dems have been running for president since they ran for the senate, or Richardson since he ran for gov., are fools.


"And so in the place of the palace of privilege, we seek to build a temple out of faith and hope and charity."-FDR
by jallen on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 02:01:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Uses Law in 1996 Election (3.00 / 1)

It does show something about his character- that he will use the rules, including those he sets for himself, like the lobbyist money thing, and play them, not just play by them.  Just because it is technically okay doesn't make it okay with me.

He plays by the rules and keeps his promises (like the lobbyist money thing) He's also tough enough to insist that everyone else plays by the rules as well.

So what's your beef?


by Mystylplx on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 02:11:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Uses Law in 1996 Election (3.00 / 1)

He uses the rules to his advantage, and muddies the water.  He solicits lobbyists wives and asks for their networks and says he doesn't take lobbyists money, for example.  It's blatantly intellectually dishonest, though technically he stuck to his self-imposed rule.


"And so in the place of the palace of privilege, we seek to build a temple out of faith and hope and charity."-FDR
by jallen on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 02:24:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Uses Law in 1996 Election (none / 0)

Of course he uses the rules to his advantage! Did you expect him to use them to his disadvantage? He's not an idiot.

And he never solicited lobbyists wives. He inadvertently took contributions from some, then gave them back.

What's blatently intellectually dishonest is trying to warp the fact that he made a promise, and kept his promise, into something shady simply because he didn't go beyond his promise and completely disassociate himself from all contact with lobbyists.


by Mystylplx on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 02:42:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Uses Law in 1996 Election (none / 0)

I never heard that he gave the money back.  Prove it.
Besides, it's intellectually dishonest of you to make that argument, as I seem to remember you (and many other Obama supporters) arguing that it was perfectly fine to say you won't take lobbyist money, but soliciting their wives and asking for their networks.
"And so in the place of the palace of privilege, we seek to build a temple out of faith and hope and charity."-FDR
by jallen on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 02:51:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Uses Law in 1996 Election (none / 0)

I may be misremembering. And as I said to Vox, welcome to the 21st century where women have minds and money of their own. Sometimes they even support different candidates! Usually it's the Clinton supporters who think a husband and wife are the same person. Are you sure you're an Edwards supporter?


by Mystylplx on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 02:55:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Uses Law in 1996 Election (none / 0)

That's a bullshit argument.  Mitt Romney's wife gave money to Planned Parenthood, too.  Are you saying it wouldn't say anything about Hillary, Barack, or John if Bill Clinton, Michelle Obama, or Elizabeth Edwards gave money to Heritage or some right to life group?


"And so in the place of the palace of privilege, we seek to build a temple out of faith and hope and charity."-FDR
by jallen on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 03:19:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Uses Law in 1996 Election (none / 0)

We're not talking about anything Michelle Obama did--we're talking about some lobbyists wives who have minds of their own. Perhaps their actions reflect on their husbands in the minds of some people, but it's not the same thing as if their husbands gave the money.

I don't even know how he was supposed to check on whether they were married to a lobbyist. Lobbyists have to register, but their wives don't.

And the fact that Laura Bush might be pro-choice doesn't make George Bush pro-choice. Wives are individual people with minds of their own.


by Mystylplx on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 04:44:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Uses Law in 1996 Election (none / 0)

Why would you specifically call up lobbyists wives and ask for money?


"And so in the place of the palace of privilege, we seek to build a temple out of faith and hope and charity."-FDR
by jallen on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 05:05:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Uses Law in 1996 Election (none / 0)

I don't see much difference between soliciting lobbyists and soliciting their wives.


BlueSunbelt.Com Netroots for the Sunbelt states robwire.com My personal blog
by robliberal on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 05:31:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Uses Law in 1996 Election (none / 0)

Prove that he did.


by Mystylplx on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 09:32:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Uses Law in 1996 Election (none / 0)

Okay, he didn't, his fundraisers did.  the artcile clearly stated that.


"And so in the place of the palace of privilege, we seek to build a temple out of faith and hope and charity."-FDR
by jallen on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 09:40:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Uses Law in 1996 Election (none / 0)

Did they know? If they did knowingly solicit lobbyists wives then the proper and reasonable response would be to reprimand them and tell them not to do it again... then get over it.

The whole point is to limit (not eliminate) lobbyist influence in his campaign. I can't see how some of his fundraisers soliciting the wives of lobbyists, without his knowledge, results in any untoward influence.

I mean, it's not like he was hurting for the money. Do you have any idea how much in actual dollars we are talking about here? (That he got from lobbyists wives)

I'm really asking--I have no clue, but I bet it wasn't earth shaking.


by Mystylplx on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 10:07:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes, women have money. (none / 0)

Some of them earn it as lobbyists.  Criticizing a candidate because he took money from the spouse of a lobbyist isn't sexist unless you assume that all lobbyists are men and their spouses, all women.  

You might want to check yourself, Mystylplx.

Otherwise, I think it's perfectly reasonable to connect money from the household of a lobbyist to the lobbyist, the occasional Carville-Matalin relationship notwithstanding.


by Drew on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 07:38:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yes, women have money. (none / 0)

You might want to check yourself, or re-read what I said. I never called anyone sexist.

Yet this is not the 19th century when women were seen as extensions of their husbands. They have their own careers, their own minds, and their own money and opinions nowadays.

Barack Obama took a positive step towards limiting (but not eliminating) the influence of lobbyists on his campaign. Criticizing him for understanding their wives are different people is absolutely silly.


by Mystylplx on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 09:37:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Uses Law in 1996 Election (none / 0)

"If Palmer's petitions were in order there wouldn't have been an issue."

Exactly.  How incompetent can an incumbent be to not get enough signatures for his/her name to appear on the ballot?  Wow!  I have never heard of that and my state has a signature requirement.  This is usually a challenger issue.


by John Mills on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 06:22:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Uses Law in 1996 Election (none / 0)

It would be one thing if it was a Republican he was facing, but he was facing other Democrats, and he didn't only do it to the outgoing incumbent, but he made it so that he ran unopposed-

No see, it's all the same thing. You might see a distinction between Republicans and Democrats there--you might try to justify a somewhat shady tactic by rationalizing it as for the greater good--but Barack Obama wouldn't see it that way. He would see it for exactly what it is: playing for keeps, and playing to win. It's the same dubious ethics, regardless of whether it's done to republicans or democrats or incumbents or challengers. To Obama morality isn't just utilitarian--it's about setting high standards for personal conduct and living up to those standards.

Here's how I view things. When Obama files a shady petition challenge to knock out all his opponents, that tells me he's a canny and smart politician. When he feels bad about it afterwards, that tells me he sets a high ethical standard for himself, higher than the one I've set for him and indeed for most people. In my mind, those are both very good things.


by Korha on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 01:47:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

STOP spinning that lie (none / 0)

about Gore "folding" in 2000. I was very impressed with how you've rebutted this lame-ass diary (and I was going to REC your comment), but then you've  placed a lame-ass smear of Gore in closing.

Facts about FL'2000
  1. Gore fought for 35 days: link
  2. After the verdict, DNC Chair Rendell called Gore to concede: link
  3. 79% of Americans wanted Gore to concede should the SC ruling go against him: link
  4. The urban myth "The Gore was cherry picking districts to get more votes." is false. They asked the Bush campaign to join them to request a statewide recount, and the Bush campaign refused. This link explains in detail.

5. Daschle and other senate Democrats had a power sharing agreement with senate Republicans, which was the reason that no Democratic senator supported the protests by the CBS regarding the certification of the election, contrary to the impression left by Fahrenheit 9/11 movie's opening scene. link.

Gore fought until no recourse was left and did so despite waning support from the party leadership in later weeks.

See also: 2000 Election synopsis



by NuevoLiberal on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 02:50:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Gore - 2000 (3.00 / 1)

Fair enough. There was plenty of blame to go around in 2000 and most of it belongs on the shoulders of the Republican Party.


by Curt Matlock on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 03:12:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

May I suggest/request you to (none / 0)

diary your comment (leaving out dissing Gore... and poor Kerry too :)), for  easier future reference?


by NuevoLiberal on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 03:30:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama Diary (3.00 / 1)

Here ya go: Obama Plays Hardball to Win 96 Primary.


by Curt Matlock on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 05:12:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Diary (none / 0)

thanks! Recommended.


by NuevoLiberal on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 05:38:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gore - 2000 (none / 0)

And the sorry team Gore had around him "advising him".  Does Shrum ring a bell?  UGHHHHH


"I want my voice to be read"
by icebergslim on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 07:47:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Gore's biggest mistake (none / 0)

was not asking for the overvotes to be counted. Along with many ballots with votes for two different candidate were thousands of ballots on which people marked the box next to Gore (or Bush), and then wrote the same candidate's name on the line for write-ins. There were thousands more of those type of overvotes for Gore than there were for Bush.


Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.
by desmoinesdem on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 03:19:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gore's biggest mistake (none / 0)

I don't recall how the overvotes situation played out. FYI, here is an analysis from democrats.com that concludes: Gore Won Florida!. To be frank, I felt back then that I could have won the case for Gore in the supreme court (despite not having a degree in law), had I argued the case instead of Boies :) I had even written down a set of arguments (which I don't recall very well now) that  I would have used.


by NuevoLiberal on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 03:38:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gore's biggest mistake (3.00 / 1)

With a biased court?  Their decision was such utter bullshit.


"And so in the place of the palace of privilege, we seek to build a temple out of faith and hope and charity."-FDR
by jallen on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 03:41:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I think O'Connor was persuadable (none / 0)

despite her obvious bias (allegiance to Reagan for nominating her).


by NuevoLiberal on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 04:08:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I think O'Connor was persuadable (none / 0)

I heard she said she wouldn't be able to retire if Gore won.


"And so in the place of the palace of privilege, we seek to build a temple out of faith and hope and charity."-FDR
by jallen on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 04:21:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Maybe. (none / 0)

Anyway, IMO, the just thing to do would have been to hold a fresh election in the entire state of Florida. This type of remedy is often used in  other countries when there is a serious dispute.


by NuevoLiberal on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 04:33:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Definitely agreed. (3.00 / 1)


"And so in the place of the palace of privilege, we seek to build a temple out of faith and hope and charity."-FDR
by jallen on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 04:37:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Maybe. (none / 0)

Actually, on second thought, they should have sided with the state supreme court.


"And so in the place of the palace of privilege, we seek to build a temple out of faith and hope and charity."-FDR
by jallen on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 06:03:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Agreed. (none / 0)

The constitution explicitly leaves it up to the states. There's not even a requirement that there be a popular vote at all, and there wasn't one in the first few Presidential elections. Originally the legislatures picked the electors. The SC had no business interfering in that at all.


by Mystylplx on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 09:40:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Good to know that O can be tough (3.00 / 4)

when needed. We don't want another Kerryesque defeat in 2008.


The history of the left is a history of purists betraying the progressive movement so that they can feel good about their righteous selves.
by Populism2008 on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 01:32:56 PM EST

Re: Good to know that O can be tough (3.00 / 1)

There is a right place for tough and a wrong place for tough.

Everyone wants a candidate to be tough.


Check out the New Progressive Blog EENRBLOG
by dk2 on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 01:42:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Supressed Voter Choices in 1996 Election (3.00 / 2)

Here's my question: When you are facing a hostile Congress or are trying to get some foreign policy done, do you want someone who will be a bare-knuckles fighter who uses every legal lever available to him?

After years of an opposition party without a spine, lowtowing to conservatives who cuold care less about the niceties of the law, I do. I want someone who will be ruthless in figuring out how to pass legislation.

This, to me, shows that Obama knows how to do it and is totally willing to make it happen, especially if he feels like he got screwed. Neither candidate comes off well in this race, but that's electoral politics which is as much about power as it is about policy. This shows me that Obama is willing to weild power as well as craft policy.

Good for him.

And I say all this an uncomitted voter leaning towards Edwards.


by nathanhj on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 01:47:50 PM EST

If that is true? (3.00 / 1)

If you are so inclined you imply that Obama will do as you say:

"Here's my question: When you are facing a hostile Congress or are trying to get some foreign policy done, do you want someone who will be a bare-knuckles fighter who uses every legal lever available to him?"

Then why didn't he employ that "bare-knuckles fighter" instinct to stand up to Bush on the last bill for Iraq?


Check out the New Progressive Blog EENRBLOG
by dk2 on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 01:51:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If that is true? (none / 0)

Well, now we're getting into the realm of strategic decisions and picking battles and all that. I don't claim that I'll agree with all of those kinds of decisions. Nor do I claim to have a better sense of this stuff than he does. I do know that as a President he'll have more power and ability to do things than he does as a first-term senator.

I'm not all that riled about this dust-up over deadlines and all that. Getting out of Iraq is going to be long-term and complex and messy. This was the first skirmish. I'm interested to see how this fight unfolds over time and what the candidates and the Congress do over time. I'll see how he continues to act and make my judgement based on the long-term actions.

Cheers.


by nathanhj on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 03:37:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If that is true? (none / 0)

Because he's a Senator and not President. Is this so hard to understand? Obama "standing up" to Bush accomplishes nothing of consequence except possibly furthering his goddamn presidential campaign...


by Korha on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 01:50:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Supressed Voter Choices in 1996 Election (none / 0)

Thing is, Obama didn't do this to "a hostile Congress" - he did it to members of his own party. And he didn't just do it to the incumbent, who's the only one who actually did him wrong. He did it to every other candidate in the race. It's one thing to screw with somebody who screws with you - it's another thing entirely to screw with people who've done you no harm just to make it easier for you to get ahead. Sure, it was technically legal - but, to make an extreme example, so were poll taxes once upon a time. And like poll taxes, if not to the same degree, this had the effect of limiting voter choice through an unjust legal technicality. Obama's said he opposes petition requirements for candidates; so why, when push came to shove, didn't Mr. "New kind of politics" put his money where his mouth is? That's my question about this whole business.


Stop blaming the media. The FACTS have a liberal bias.
by McSnatherson on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 05:28:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Supressed Voter Choices in 1996 Election (none / 0)

He had to get his signatures--why shouldn't they have to play by the same rules? They only needed 750 valid sigs. That's nothing. You can bet if his signatures weren't valid they weren't going to be all nicey-nice with him. This is Chi-town we're talking about.


by Mystylplx on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 09:43:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Supressed Voter Choices in 1996 Election (3.00 / 1)

So is he another cynical "Chi-town" politico who's willing to do whatever it takes to win and the hell with ethics and principles like most Obama supporters seem to be saying now, or is he the Great Black Hope who's going to lead America into a "new kind of politics" founded on ethics and principles (and "hope", whatever that means) like most Obama supporters were saying earlier? Because it can't be both.

What I'm getting at is this: yes, this is not at all an unusual kind of politics for a corrupt machine city like Chicago - if you're a corrupt machine pol. But Obama's entire campaign is based on the "audacity of hope" - on rejecting corruption and cynicism. So if he's really just another Chi-town pol, his entire campaign is based on a lie. Forgive me if I think that's kind of a big deal.


Stop blaming the media. The FACTS have a liberal bias.
by McSnatherson on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 04:42:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Supressed Voter Choices in 1996 Election (none / 0)

He was a rookie who played by the rules and won.

11 years later he has evolved--unlike Edwards who still seems to be a purely strategic politician. He voted for the war without even bothering to read the intelligence report, then when the war became more unpopular among Democrats he started opposing it. Since then he just comes out with one 'feel-good' plan after another. Edwards doesn't seem to have a clue. He just does what the polls tell him is the best move.

Has John Edwards ever taken an unpopular stand? Ever?


by Mystylplx on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 12:18:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Supressed Voter Choices in 1996 Election (3.00 / 1)

Yes, damn that John Edwards for choosing to stand with the American people rather than the Beltway Bubble Boys! How truly heinous of him to advocate policies that benefit the nation as a whole rather than special-interest programs (cough, liquid coal, cough) that benefit only a richly-endowed few. Honestly, you have to've been smoking Joe Klein's crack pipe if you think "authenticity" is a synonym for "unpopularity" - 'cause if so, the fake Texan from New England is one of the most authentic Presidents ever.

Also, do you even bother to read the website you're posting on? Because if you had, you would've seen plenty of examples of Edwards taking risky positions in support of his principles. "The Global War on Terror is a bumper sticker" ring any bells?

Also, I'd be delighted to see any actual evidence that Obama actually has "evolved" and sworn off this kind of unscrupulous tactic. Come on. Any evidence at all.


Stop blaming the media. The FACTS have a liberal bias.
by McSnatherson on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 04:07:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Oh please (3.00 / 1)

Are you from Nebraska or something? How do you think we got Nader off the ballot in Pennsylvania? Get real.


by andgarden on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 01:58:07 PM EST

Re: Oh please (3.00 / 2)

Actually I'm from Indiana.  We don't do petition drives.  And the legal challenges to get Nader off the ballot, while positive to our efforts (as he was funded by Republicans) was at least somewhat immoral.

Voters should have their choice.


The sharpest criticism often goes hand in hand with the deepest idealism and love of country. ~RFK
by Vox Populi on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 02:00:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh please (3.00 / 1)

My beef is that he even thought to use those rules to eliminate an incumbent Democrat instead of fighting out the primary.  
It makes me very wary of the tactics his team is using now, including that very interesting front page story by Jared Roebuck.

I wonder whether any other Democrats had done that before in that district.  


I am an Edwards Democrat. Visit EENR blog for Progressives
by pioneer111 on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 02:21:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh please (none / 0)

I wonder whether any other Democrats had done that before in that district.  

This is Chicago we're talking about... you can't really be that innocent.


by Mystylplx on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 09:45:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh please (3.00 / 0)

Exactly.  Politics is not for the faint of heart and as long as you are following the rules I don't have one bit of a problem with what Obama did.  And I wouldn't if Edwards, Hillary or anyone else had done it.  Ballot access rules are ballot access rules and only an idiot wouldn't use them to his/her advantage.


by John Mills on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 06:44:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You got it backwards (3.00 / 3)

Calling someone out on bogus petitions is "dirty politics?"  Seems like the others were practicing dirty politics (I don't know the facts of why the challenges were upheld).  If you're concerned with voter suppression, your beef should be with nominating petitions and not Obama.


Our Moment Is Now
by mboehm on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 02:14:53 PM EST

Re: You got it backwards (3.00 / 0)

They are with the nominating petitions.  Candidates who take the high road, and who like Obama oppose petitions in theory, could have chosen not to challenge and allowed the election to take place.


The sharpest criticism often goes hand in hand with the deepest idealism and love of country. ~RFK
by Vox Populi on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 02:16:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You got it backwards (3.00 / 3)

Or he could have just stepped out of the race. Or he could have taken a gun and shot himself.

But he didn't. He played by the rules and insisted everyone else do the same. I don't know where you get this idea that someone who opposes the current rule set should just ignore it. That's just crazy. He also favors public financing for elections, so by your logic he should stop all his fundraising activity right now and give all the money back.

That's not the way things work in the real world.


by Mystylplx on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 02:26:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You got it backwards (none / 0)

Whatever!

He could have helped change the rules once elected, but chose not to.  The same reason I guess he hasn't introduced legislation on public financing.  It's great to support things in concept but god forbid he do anything about it.


The sharpest criticism often goes hand in hand with the deepest idealism and love of country. ~RFK
by Vox Populi on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 02:40:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You got it backwards (none / 0)

So this is your beef... that he didn't introduce legislation on everything in the world he supports or advocates. Did Edwards introduce such legislation in his six years in the Senate?


by Mystylplx on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 02:47:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Candidates who take the high road (none / 0)

are called losers.

You do what it takes.


by dataguy on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 05:22:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Candidates who take the high road (none / 0)

Said like a true Republican.  George Bush deserves to be in the White House because he "did what it takes" by your defenition.  Just because it's legal doesn't make it right.

Weren't you on your way to lynch some Indian?


The sharpest criticism often goes hand in hand with the deepest idealism and love of country. ~RFK
by Vox Populi on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 05:36:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

He Also Endorsed (3.00 / 3)

Chaka Fattah for mayor earlier this year in the primary here in Philadelphia.  Why Obama would get involved in a Democratic Primary of a local race is a mystery to me, but just to let you know, Fattah is one of the corrupt, machine Democrats here in the City of Brotherly Love.  Michael Nutter was the progressive candidate endorsed by the local DFA chapter.  For those who dispute my characterization of Fattah, here is the link from Will Bunch, a local journalist with well established progressive credentials:  http://www.attytood.com/2007/05/the_auda city_ofnope.html


by jerseycorn on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 02:21:48 PM EST

That was fabulously stupid... (none / 0)

...mainly because it was painfully obvious that Fattah didn't stand a chance after trying to criticize Nutter for "having to remind himself that he's black". It was also bad form to try and monkey around in a local political race he knew nothing about and it shows an arrogance that flies in the face of his "new politics" rhetoric (which sounds an awful lot like blowing smoke up my rear, but what do I know?).

But- while Fattah is certainly a machine Dem, and a legacy at that, I'm curious in what sense you believe he's corrupt. If you mean morally corrupt than I might agree, mainly because of his attempts to strip Philly of its rights to regulate campaign donations. But, if you mean actually corrupt, than I think you should provide more than a link to a three sentence post by Will Bunch.

Either way, I really, really hope that Gore makes the jump (and I'm fairly certain that he will)- we cannot risk our nation's future on all of these unknowns (or even worse, the ones we know).


Future Majority / Young Philly Politics
by Alex Urevick on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 05:01:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That was fabulously stupid... (none / 0)

Sorry, I forgot that it is in a different Attytood post.  Here is the link that convinced me:

http://www.attytood.com/2007/01/the_sham e_of_2003_wont_die.html

Here is the key quote:
"And Brady and Fattah may have had their own selfish reasons for wanting to ridicule the bugging probe, since it turned out that both had political ties with the past and future felon who triggered the entire investigation in the first place: Corrupt Muslim cleric Shamsud din-Ali."

Agree with you re Gore.  I wish I could be as certain as you.


by jerseycorn on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 09:27:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: He Also Endorsed (none / 0)

Corrupt?  That's nonsense.  Machine?  Not that either.  Are you confusing Cong. Fattah with one of his opponents in the race?


by Adam B on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 06:36:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Corrupt? Yes. (none / 0)

I trust Will Bunch's reporting.  See reply above for link.


by jerseycorn on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 09:30:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Corrupt? Yes. (none / 0)

Will doesn't call Fattah corrupt, or anything like it.


by Adam B on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 12:33:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: He Also Endorsed (none / 0)

Adam- there is more than one "machine" in Philadelphia (how did Bill Green get elected?), and Fattah is a direct product of one of them. The City Committee doesn't control everything, and various groups have taken over parts of the Ward system over the years.

There were three "machine" candidates in this election: Brady, Fattah, and Evans (who had Ward support in the NW, though it didn't do him much good).


Future Majority / Young Philly Politics
by Alex Urevick on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 10:54:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: He Also Endorsed (none / 0)

Mayors' sons get elected.  Wait for Councilman Jesse Rendell.

Groups with influence in parts of the city are not "machines," and this election proved Fattah's to be rather weak.


by Adam B on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 12:34:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

How'd the machine do for others? (none / 0)

Adam- First of all "the machine" is usually used to describe the various parts of the Ward System/City Committee. In the end each of the candidates had some ward support, but three came directly from that system (or takeovers of certain Wards) while Nutter was always a slight outsider, despite the fact that he was a Ward leader. If you look at the two candidates most associated with various parts of the Ward System/City Committee--Brady and Fattah--they received almost exactly the same percentage of votes, but from different parts of the machine (there's a racial element to Party Politics in Philly? the hell you say!). Evans had support in Tasco and Miller's Council Districts, though certainly not all of the Ward support, and it didn't help him at all either.

The election didn't prove Fattah's to be rather weak, it proved that the entire Dem machine (or Ward/Division system if that is too abstract) is weak, no matter who they supported, at least when it comes to mayoral races. Down ballot races are a whole other story, but to claim that Fattah is anything other than the child of a Ward takeover is, imo, wrong...


Future Majority / Young Philly Politics
by Alex Urevick on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 06:54:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

So much for Obama (3.00 / 2)

beating out tough competition when it came to votes. He just eliminated them. I can't believe all 4 of the candidates were using bad petitions. Can you?


by Chaoslillith on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 02:42:21 PM EST

Re: So much for Obama (3.00 / 0)

If no one expected a challenge they might have gotten the minimum number needed and there are always names that can be eliminated.  That is one of the questions I have.  Did the competitors know the petitions were going to be challenged?  If this was not a regular practice in the primaries it might be legal but I questions its appropriateness.


I am an Edwards Democrat. Visit EENR blog for Progressives
by pioneer111 on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 02:57:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So much for Obama (3.00 / 0)

From the Chicago Tribune:

"Davis and others urged Obama to file legal challenges.

Such tactics are legal and frequently used in Chicago. Ballot challenges eliminated 67 of the 245 declared aldermanic candidates in Chicago before this past February's elections, an election board spokesman said."


by Baldrick on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 05:34:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So much for Obama (3.00 / 0)

Any candidate who doesn't automatically assume their petitions are going to be challenged is an idiot.  The rule of thumb is get twice the required number so you can withstand the challenge.


by John Mills on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 06:31:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So much for Obama (none / 0)

It would be unusual for all candidates but one to have problems with their petitions.


BlueSunbelt.Com Netroots for the Sunbelt states robwire.com My personal blog
by robliberal on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 05:32:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So much for Obama (none / 0)

pretty easy to through out petitions if your lawyers are good enough.  Ask Nader about that.


Vote for a true progressive in November: Cynthia McKinney (GRN) for President!
by brooklyngreenie on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 07:18:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Supressed Voter Choices in 1996 Election (3.00 / 1)

This is ridiculous. The people cheated to get on the ballot--they used fake signatures for Christsakes.


Never separate the life you live from the words you speak. -Sen. Paul Wellstone (Minnesota)
by Max Fletcher on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 03:21:44 PM EST

Re: Obama Supressed Voter Choices in 1996 Election (none / 0)

Do you have a link to back that up? Here in Philly people get thrown off for all sorts of reasons- the petitions weren't notarized correctly, the person didn't list their last name, there was a problem with the person who took the signature, the person put their address where their signature should go, etc.


Future Majority / Young Philly Politics
by Alex Urevick on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 05:03:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Supressed Voter Choices in 1996 Election (3.00 / 0)

From the Chicago Tribune:

"City authorities had just completed a massive, routine purge of unqualified names that eliminated 15,871 people from the 13th District rolls, court records show.

Ewell and other Obama rivals had relied on early 1995 polling sheets to verify the signatures of registered voters--but Obama's challenges were decided at least in part using the most recent, accurate list, records show.

Askia filed 1,899 signatures, but the Obama team sustained objections to 1,211, leaving him 69 short, records show.

Leafing through scrapbooks in his South Shore apartment, Askia, a perennially unsuccessful candidate, acknowledges that he paid Democratic Party precinct workers $5 a sheet for some of the petitions, and now suspects they used a classic Chicago ruse of passing the papers among themselves to forge the signatures. "They round-tabled me," Askia said."


by Baldrick on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 05:35:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Why are people even talking about this? (3.00 / 0)

If you are not from Chicago, I am, the politics are dirty, straight up.  And for the record, contesting names, lists, races is an "on going thing in Chi", for real.  The contender had FAKE NAMES, for fucks sake.  And you are trying to make this non-story into a story of him suppressing votes?  Geez, is your candidate that behind, lack that much enthusiasm, that people will bring up anything to halt Obama's momentum?  Give it up, folks!


"I want my voice to be read"
by icebergslim on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 07:54:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why are people even talking about this? (none / 0)

All 4 of his opponents had fake signatures even the long time incumbent?
BlueSunbelt.Com Netroots for the Sunbelt states robwire.com My personal blog
by robliberal on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 08:41:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why are people even talking about this? (3.00 / 0)

The long time incumbent said she wasn't going to run, and then when she figured she couldn't win the race she was trying to win, she tried to get her job back and pressure Obama to drop.  He said no and then the backbiting and politics began.  She is the worst of all of this for going back on her word because she couldn't win the other race and wanted her cushy senate job back.  There were impropriaties on her petition as well as others.  Obama challenged and won.  Some people think its right and others wrong.

Apparently though to some on here, only CERTAIN candidates can make a mistake and its OK... Edwards record as a Senator, including his war vote is OK because it is in the past, but a political situation in Obama's past is unforgivable in Vox and several other rabid Edwards fanatics on here.  Its so completely hypocritical and ridiculous.


by yitbos96bb on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 09:11:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama's Stedfast Objections (3.00 / 1)

to the war used to be a big plus in his favor.  That was until he refused to commit to opposing Bush's blank check until enough yea votes were already cast.  And I am leaning slightly toward Edwards; I am no "fanatic".


by jerseycorn on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 09:35:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's Stedfast Objections (none / 0)

For saying that, you are from now on.  Brace yourself.


The sharpest criticism often goes hand in hand with the deepest idealism and love of country. ~RFK
by Vox Populi on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 09:37:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Heh. (none / 0)

I'm a big boy, now.  The schoolchildren won't make me cry.


by jerseycorn on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 10:50:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why are people even talking about this? (none / 0)

Yes.

They also had many signatures from people who were no longer part of the district.

It's explained in a post like four inches above this one.


by Baldrick on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 09:49:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You're officially the new Gary Boatwright (1.25 / 4)

And if we ever wanted to weed out the people who indiscriminately recommend every anti-Obama diary, here it is:

desmoinesdem
ManfromMiddletown
misscee
domma
MeanBoneII
dk2
benny06
Carolina Voice
pioneer111
littafi
LindaSFNM


by mihan on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 03:36:57 PM EST

Re: You're officially the new Gary Boatwright (3.00 / 2)

Who/What is Gary Boatwright?

And what's the purpose of your list?


The sharpest criticism often goes hand in hand with the deepest idealism and love of country. ~RFK
by Vox Populi on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 03:41:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You're officially the new Gary Boatwright (2.50 / 2)

And why would we want to weed out people?  the Obama supporters seem to whine alot and I guess it works since they got a front page poster.

Nothing in this diary was untrue or slanted.  It pointed out how he got into politics.  

And these are the bloggers that recommended the anti Edwards diary Edwards Says He read the NIE but he didn't  
which just rehashes old stuff and and plays gotcha with RW points.  But it is an open blog.

kevin22262
aiko
Donna Z
whodat527
jen
jj32
westcott
KnightRider
pelican
sybil disobedience
mihan
OsoDelMar
SusanCLE
mdiogu
Transplanted Texan
idea list
Phyl
ObamaEdwards2008
Mystylplx
JaeHood
r k sooz
parahammer

I'm not sure what any of it proves other than we have a point of view.  And I see your name on the list too.  
I think you are being just a little hypocritical.


I am an Edwards Democrat. Visit EENR blog for Progressives
by pioneer111 on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 04:41:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You're officially the new Gary Boatwright (none / 0)

But don't you see the difference? John Edwards voted in favor of the Iraq war without even bothering to read the NIE. He was on the intelligence commitee and he didn't even read the intelligence.

See how not petty that is? See how petty this diary is? 10 years ago Obama played by 6he rules when none of his opponents did and thus was able to run unopposed. John Edwards voted to take this country into an unnecessary preemptive war without even bothering to read the intelligence!


by Mystylplx on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 04:57:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You're officially the new Gary Boatwright (none / 0)

NO I don't see it that way.

Obama also has said he doesn't know how he would have voted yet Obama supporters and Obama himself hold to a half truth by saying that he was against the war with no vote to prove it.


Check out the New Progressive Blog EENRBLOG
by dk2 on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 05:02:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You're officially the new Gary Boatwright (3.00 / 1)

He only said that to help Edwards in 2004.

Many many times, as early as 2002, he very clearly said he opposed the war.


by Mystylplx on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 05:14:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Then you are saying (none / 0)

that he doesn't speak truth - only when it is of his choosing?

You can't have it both ways. - either he is truth all the time and speaks it that way or he speaks the way that is convenient at the time.

Which is it?  Can you be sure? You can't have it both ways.


Check out the New Progressive Blog EENRBLOG
by dk2 on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 05:20:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Then you are saying (3.00 / 0)

Says the guy supporting the guy who was anything but progressive in the Senate and has a lot of blood on his hands for his support of and voting for of the Iraq war.


by yitbos96bb on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 09:14:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Then you are saying (3.00 / 1)

[Edwards] was anything but progressive in the Senate

Y'know, you've got some nerve running around accusing people of being shoddy researchers when you can't even be bothered to read the recc list on the very site you're commenting on.
Stop blaming the media. The FACTS have a liberal bias.
by McSnatherson on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 09:34:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama and the war (3.00 / 0)

I don't know that Obama said it "many many" times that he was against the war until he started to run for president.  

Many Edwards supporters, including me, think he made a great call in 2002.  I was against the vote.  However since then, particularly since he got into the senate he was remarkedly quiet about the war and voted to keep funding it, when Edwards started to speak against it in 2003 and voted against the $87B funding in October 2003 when the war was still popular.  However Obama kept funding the war and didn't say much a week ago to convince his colleagues to vote against the funding.  

The more I learn about Obama the more he looks like a regular politician who says and votes what is convenient at the time.  I do think that Obama tries to do his best, and all politicians have to consider their constituency.  However, the claim has been that he is this wonderful new type of politician whom you can trust.  I don't quite see that anymore.  I did a while ago when I knew very little about him and his past.  

Obama was right in 2002, the question is has he been right about the war since 2005 while in the senate?

This article suggests that he was determined to get into politics no matter who was his competition - whether it was a progressive Democrat or not.  I now wonder about some of his other campaigns and this one.


I am an Edwards Democrat. Visit EENR blog for Progressives
by pioneer111 on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 05:35:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama and the war (none / 0)

I recall him saying it more than once. Maybe "many many" is an overstatement, but he's clearly on the record as opposing the war since 2002.

But he also recognizes that you can't unspill milk. Once we were there we had a responsibility to our troops to keep them funded, and to the Iraqi people to not precipitate a genocide by suddenly cutting the funding.

And I don't think his vote last week was about cutting the funding either. I don't know, but I suspect if it had looked like the bill wasn't going to pass he probably would have voted for it. He's also been clear in his opposition to the idea of suddenly cutting the funds with no plan for an orderly withdrawel. I think his vote was partly for political reasons, and partly a protest vote because the bill had no deadlines. He has to deal with the political realities like everyone else.


by Mystylplx on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 05:54:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama and the war (none / 0)

So when you say

I don't know, but I suspect if it had looked like the bill wasn't going to pass he probably would have voted for it.

One other thing, no one has said to cut off funding abruptly.  It cannot happen, government is slow in how it works.

you think that political pandering is okay.  You think he would have voted differently if the vote was close.  That is the problem.  I have no idea now what Obama believes and how he would get us out of the war.  His plan to get 16 Republicans is pie in the sky and just rhetoric.  

And this is all okay with you?  Yet people are still quibbling about what Edwards said about 2002.  He is putting himself on the line trying to end this war, and it is okay with you that Obama doesn't tell us what he really thinks but goes along with the Repubs.  I am astounded.

I was against the invasion and I am against the occupation.  It drains our treasury and kills our troops and Iraqis.  We have no business being there and I have no patience with a leader who waffles so much.


I am an Edwards Democrat. Visit EENR blog for Progressives
by pioneer111 on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 06:22:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama and the war (none / 0)

"Abruptly" in this case means within a few months.

And this has nothing to do with political pandering. His plan to get 16 Republican votes was quite possible until this bill passed. The Baye/Snow Bill could well have succeeded in getting the required votes to over-ride the veto, and not coincidentally it rather closely resembles Obama's plan.


by Mystylplx on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 09:04:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama and the war (none / 0)

And BTW, how can you be upset that people are still "quibbling" about Edwards vote to take this country into an unnecessary preemptive war, apparently without even bothering to read the intelligence report was the whole case for the war but not see how petty it is to bring up something Barack Obama did 11 years ago? When he was obviously right that something was funny with those petitions?

Obama has never waffled. He's been quite consistent until the most recent vote, and I'm not sure what his reasoning was on that one. You must be thinking of John Edwards or Hillary Clinton.


by Mystylplx on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 09:09:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You're officially the new Gary Boatwright (3.00 / 1)

Its more pathethic in the fact that Vox is selling this as a new story.  This has been out for MONTHS.   The Chicago Tribune did a story about it in their Sunday edition.  Its an old story and THAT makes VOX 's diary utterly worthless...  Here's some "new" newsflashes... Edwards voted for the War... Edwards apologized for it... He bought a big house and worked for a hedge fund... Hillary voted for the war...  Obama made a verbal gaffe on Bush vetoing the supplemental...  Since we are rehashing old news lets rehash some more.  


by yitbos96bb on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 09:05:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You're officially the new Gary Boatwright (none / 0)

Go ahead and start diaries doing just that.  At the same time, it's apparant from the discussion in the thread that people aren't familiar with this story.  So therefore it IS "new" to us.


The sharpest criticism often goes hand in hand with the deepest idealism and love of country. ~RFK
by Vox Populi on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 09:09:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You're officially the new Gary Boatwright (none / 0)

They they should pay more attention.  While I do not think it was diaried, I remember it was talked about on MyDD in some of the comments section the day it came out and for a few days after.


by yitbos96bb on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 09:16:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm Supposed To Read (3.00 / 2)

Every daily newspaper of every major city in the U.S. every day and every comment of every diary on this site every day or it's my fault for not paying attention?  You have unreasonable expectations.  This was news to me, and while it is not a smoking gun to me, it does add a little to my impression of him, and I am glad that the diary was written.


by jerseycorn on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 09:51:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I never heard of this before (none / 0)

and I read MyDD every day. This was news to me today.


Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.
by desmoinesdem on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 10:09:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I never heard of this before (none / 0)

This diary was the first I had ever heard this story as well.
BlueSunbelt.Com Netroots for the Sunbelt states robwire.com My personal blog
by robliberal on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 11:08:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I never heard of this before (none / 0)

and i don't suppose it will be the last.


The sharpest criticism often goes hand in hand with the deepest idealism and love of country. ~RFK
by Vox Populi on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 11:14:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You're officially the new Gary Boatwright (3.00 / 1)

What is important to me may not be important to you, that is the difference in us being human.

I Have never been one to complain about trivia of uprated post, but I have complained about those who will slink into a diary and troll rate post, and not even have the courage to post a comment themselves.

Sorry your view and mine of importance is different! That's the way it is. I will continue to uprate what is important to me, as you can also.


Check out the New Progressive Blog EENRBLOG
by dk2 on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 04:59:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Oh, cry me a river (3.00 / 2)

This diary asks legitimate questions about whether a candidate who bases his whole campaign around himself practicing a higher, nobler form of politics is hypocritical if he in fact engages in some of the uglier (if technically legal) sides of politics. Sure, it's presented rather combatively, and I might have refrained from recc'ing it for civility's sake - if this unmitigated turd of a diary hadn't just been pushed onto the recc list by the Edwards-haters, yourself prominently among them. But since I didn't, I guess you might as well go ahead and add me to that Nixonian enemies list you appear to be compiling.


Stop blaming the media. The FACTS have a liberal bias.
by McSnatherson on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 05:14:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh, cry me a river (3.00 / 1)

Agreed.

I'm an Obama supporter, but there is absolutely no denying that this is a perfectly legitimate diary which raises important questions.

I don't agree with the conclusion of the diarist, but I certainly do not think this is a non-issue and would be skeptical of any Obama-supporter who pretends that there couldn't possibly be any relevance to this story.


by Baldrick on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 05:37:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh, cry me a river (3.00 / 0)

If there was any relevance, the MSM would be all over it.  Since it only outlined what happened, showing fraud more than voter suppression, explaing how Obama fought for the legality of the vote, it adds up to a resounding nothing.


"I want my voice to be read"
by icebergslim on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 07:57:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh, cry me a river (3.00 / 2)

If there was any relevance, the MSM would be all over it.

Yes, because if there's one thing we can all have perfect faith in, it's the omniscience and altruism of our corrupt corporate media. Seriously - go read Media Matters some time. Maybe then you'll be a little less clueless about how the media works.
Stop blaming the media. The FACTS have a liberal bias.
by McSnatherson on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 09:37:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh, cry me a river (3.00 / 1)

If there was any relevance, the MSM would be all over it.

Umm, I'm not so sure about that one. Since when has the MSM been entirely competent at making decisions about what's relevant?


While I could sit in church and pray all I want, I wouldn't be fulfilling God's will unless I went out and did the Lord's work ~ Barack Obama
by bowiegeek on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 02:26:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh, cry me a river (none / 0)

I certainly do not think this is a non-issue and would be skeptical of any Obama-supporter who pretends that there couldn't possibly be any relevance to this story.

Look at it like this--within a context of a blog where it's one petty criticism of Obama after another, and where the majority of participants are willing to forgive John Edwards for voting to take our country into an unnecessary preemptive war, apparently without even bothering to read the intelligence report which the case for war was based on, this is a non-issue.

This was 11 years ago. It was his first campaign. And this is how things are done in Chi-town. If the other candidates had played by the rules it wouldn't have happened. If Obama hadn't played by the rules it would have happened very differently.

It's a non-issue.


by Mystylplx on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 10:15:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You're officially the new Gary Boatwright (none / 0)

oh sweet sweet irony.


by Korha on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 01:54:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Supressed Voter Choices in 1996 Election (none / 0)

Obama was reelected 3 or 4 times since 1996.....these accusations are not relevant.


by vamonticello on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 03:53:15 PM EST

Re: Obama Supressed Voter Choices in 1996 Election (3.00 / 3)

Of course it is.  Do you know how hard it is to unseat an incumbent Democrat state legislator in a heavily Democratic urban district?  His first election is extremely important.


"And so in the place of the palace of privilege, we seek to build a temple out of faith and hope and charity."-FDR
by jallen on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 04:05:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Supressed Voter Choices in 1996 Election (none / 0)

Sure is.


by Korha on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 01:56:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Supressed Voter Choices in 1996 Election (3.00 / 2)

I like Obama.  I don't think he's radically different from other politicians, but I do think he's making an effort to change the way campaigns are done, and I support that.

This story makes me itchy - I certainly don't think it was entirely sporting, though I can't say it is a devastating blow, either.  I certainly would be happier if it hadn't happened.

All that said, he's a couple quotes from the Chicago Tribune article about this:

Just in time for the Dec. 18, 1995, filing deadline, Palmer submitted 1,580 signatures--about twice the minimum required. That day,Obama lashed out at her, telling the Tribune she had pressured him to withdraw.

So it's not like she met the number exactly and he got one signature disallowed.  The other candidates had 1,286 and 1,899 signatures, BTW.

In addition:

Davis and others urged Obama to file legal challenges.

Such tactics are legal and frequently used in Chicago. Ballot challenges eliminated 67 of the 245 declared aldermanic candidates in Chicago before this past February's elections, an election board spokesman said.

So it's not like this was unexpected or was done behind the backs of the candidates.  They knew very well that this was an issue, and it does make me wonder at their qualifications for office if they couldn't even beat this hurdle.

Finally, one of the other candidates admits that his signatures were almost certainly forged:

Leafing through scrapbooks in his South Shore apartment, Askia, a perennially unsuccessful candidate, acknowledges that he paid Democratic Party precinct workers $5 a sheet for some of the petitions, and now suspects they used a classic Chicago ruse of passing the papers among themselves to forge the signatures. "They round-tabled me," Askia said.

None of this means I support getting them disallowed.  But I think it's important to understand the context.  There certainly is at least an argument to be made that preventing candidates from getting on the ballot with forged signatures is radically different from voter suppression.


by Baldrick on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 05:28:16 PM EST

Suppressing illegal voters is GOOD (3.00 / 0)

It's just like suppressing illegal immigrants.  It's a good thing.

I have no problem with Mr. Obama enforcing the rules of elections.  He is not an idiot, like many "progressives".


by dataguy on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 05:33:30 PM EST

Re: NO illegal voters were being registered (3.00 / 1)

Nothing in the article suggests they were illegal voters.  Voters are often thrown off a list because of technical reasons, such as how things are placed on a line, some information put on the wrong line, and so on.  Some of the lists may have had duplicates or ineligible voters but nothing suggests that the candidates had tried to do anything illegal.  Their petition collectors may have done a poor job.  But this is not a usual strategy for Democratic primary.


I am an Edwards Democrat. Visit EENR blog for Progressives
by pioneer111 on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 05:50:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Suppressing illegal voters is GOOD (3.00 / 1)

They aren't necessarily illegal voters.  Having voters sign petitions is along the same lines as requiring a poll tax.

All it takes to get an otherwise valid signature taken off the petition is for one side to say "I can't read that name."  That's it.  The name is taken off.

The indications are that nobody was there challenging Obama's signatures, otherwise I think you would have found a similar number of "faulty" signatures.  Which is why the petitions are bullshit.


The sharpest criticism often goes hand in hand with the deepest idealism and love of country. ~RFK
by Vox Populi on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 05:58:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Supressed Voter Choices in 1996 Election (3.00 / 0)

From the Chicago Tribune, cited directly above: "Leafing through scrapbooks in his South Shore apartment, Askia, a perennially unsuccessful candidate, acknowledges that he paid Democratic Party precinct workers $5 a sheet for some of the petitions, and now suspects they used a classic Chicago ruse of passing the papers among themselves to forge the signatures. "They round-tabled me," Askia said."
by Baldrick on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 05:58:00 PM EST

Re: Obama Supressed Voter Choices in 1996 Election (none / 0)

But I thought he was the second coming?... Go Hillary!!!


by sterkt on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 08:42:53 PM EST

Re: Obama Supressed Voter Choices in 1996 Election (3.00 / 0)

Only idiots ever called him that... and nearly all of them didn't support Obama.  Those who did just like him and his message.


by yitbos96bb on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 09:21:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The Part I Don't Understand (none / 0)

This is the part I do not understand. Why would a long term incumbent who would have easily defeated Obama need to use fake signatures. Since it was their district they would have an easier time than anyone in submitting the petitions. That does not really make a lot of sense.
BlueSunbelt.Com Netroots for the Sunbelt states robwire.com My personal blog
by robliberal on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 08:44:46 PM EST

Exactly (3.00 / 0)

and that's why this diary is so incredibly stupid.  

Obama used the rules to help defeat an incompetent opponent.  Why is this a bad thing?


by dataguy on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 09:28:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Part I Don't Understand (none / 0)

As has been posted MANY times, she was running for a different race and had committed to Obama that she would step out of the way, but then lost badly in her other race.  So, at the 11th hour she got back in the race and had to collect the signatures over just a couple days.


by Baldrick on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 09:48:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Supressed Voter Choices in 1996 Election (1.00 / 0)

This story was in the Chicago Tribune Sunday Edition MONTHS ago.  I believe people talked about it on MyDD.  Once again Vox, your "research" is ever so "impressive"...   Stay current with your diaries or don't post them.  This is old news.


by yitbos96bb on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 09:00:28 PM EST

1996 Election (3.00 / 2)

I'll post what I want, when I want, and if you're not fond of it don't comment.  How difficult is that?  Rather than whine and cry, MOVE ON.


The sharpest criticism often goes hand in hand with the deepest idealism and love of country. ~RFK
by Vox Populi on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 09:04:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 1996 Election (3.00 / 0)

Move on is rich coming from someone posting something that happened 11 years ago.

And I'll comment on what I want, when I want and if your not fond of it, then don't bother replying to it.  Now, Mr  "Voice of the People" how hard is that... rather than bitch and moan when someone takes umbrage with your diaries like you usually seem to do, you should best take your own "advice" and move on.  


by yitbos96bb on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 09:19:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Supressed Voter Choices in 1996 Election (none / 0)

If this were dailykos, I would obvious need to say:

"I used to support __, but in light of this I'm going to vote for ___."


While I could sit in church and pray all I want, I wouldn't be fulfilling God's will unless I went out and did the Lord's work ~ Barack Obama
by bowiegeek on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 09:00:48 PM EST

Stupid diary (3.00 / 0)

Rules are set to govern contests.  You break the rules, you lose the contest.  A sensible person uses the rules to help himself/herself out.

Any other position is simply crazy.  

Why don't you write a diary about the invalid use of  Robert's Rules of Order to stop legislation from passing?


by dataguy on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 09:26:54 PM EST

Re: Obama Supressed Voter Choices in 1996 Election (none / 0)

why are we attacking our own candidates?


by ijm7 on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 10:12:53 PM EST

Re: Obama Supressed Voter Choices in 1996 Election (none / 0)

Because they aren't "our" candidates.  I have "my" candidate, you have "your" candidate, there is no consensus candidate.


The sharpest criticism often goes hand in hand with the deepest idealism and love of country. ~RFK
by Vox Populi on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 10:17:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Serious allegation? On the contrary (none / 0)

I first ran across this in a TNR profile by Ryan Lizza called "The Agitator," and if anything it makes me support him more. I'm not interested in a goody two-shoes loser. I want a politician, in the best sense of that word. Barack Obama fits the bill!


by Korha on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 12:58:22 AM EST

I'm tired of Casper Milquetoast (none / 0)

I want someone who can get down in the gutter and do the wet work.  I am warming to Obama.


by dataguy on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 01:25:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm tired of Casper Milquetoast (3.00 / 1)

Well then Bush is your guy.  He and his cabal are definitely in the gutter.

I don't want any Democratic president to "get in the gutter."  I want Rule of Law and the "spirit" of the law restored.  I don't want manipulation to be the order of the day.  I want to restore real moral leadership in America.  I want "new politics" not the same old dirty politics.


I am an Edwards Democrat. Visit EENR blog for Progressives
by pioneer111 on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 12:25:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm tired of Casper Milquetoast (none / 0)

Rule of Law and "spirit of the law" means enforcing the law.  People who don't have enough legal signatures don't belong on the ballots.  


by Adam B on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 05:42:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm tired of Casper Milquetoast (none / 0)

Nope, you missed the point, but it all is a matter of opinion.  It just proves that Obama is not about "new politics"  He started by muscling his way in.  If you like that okay, but he says one thing and does another.  That is the point.

It was a surprise because I imagined him going into politics for more altruistic reasons, but now see it more for power.  Just an opinion.

I guess that is why I like Edwards more now.


I am an Edwards Democrat. Visit EENR blog for Progressives
by pioneer111 on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 11:17:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Are you like 16 or something? (none / 0)

You are simply beyond naive.  Being altruistic does not mean that you are a virgin.  Obama has actually had sex, and you purity trolls seem to believe that unless he is pure in body and soul that he is a FLAMING HYPOCRITE.

It's pathetic, if it weren't so absolutely juvenile.

Politicians are simply men and women who do a job, and use the tools available to do the job.   They are not saints, and they do not lose credibility if they are not saints.  

This entire diary is mostly the stupidest bunch of purity troll bullshit that i have read in a while.


by dataguy on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 12:05:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Are you like 16 or something? (none / 0)

I would love to be 16 again.  It has been a while and I was a virgin then.  Oh to be so innocent as then.  Juvenile I am not.  Nor pathetic.  Not clear why you think that it advances your thesis to call someone names.  I guess it is because you are so mature and measured in your opinion and wise beyond my years.  But then again maybe not.

I know that politicians are not saints.  However if one runs on the issue of a new type of politics then then some of us expect that the person would live that principle.  When it is shown that you have used old type of politics to get into the game, people may question your authenticity.  

Given that I think the government has been fucked over by politicians that use tools they have at hand for their own personal agendas, I do look for the more altruistic one.   Obama struck me as being that way.  He also claims that we should choose him because he made a good judgment call in 2002. But when I see him making typical political choices and being mean spirited about it in the past, and then I see him make calculated decisions about votes on the war, I am not impressed and question whether that would be who I want to be the president.

Obviously you don't see it that way.  You are fine with the more cynical approach.  Your choice and my choice.  My criteria for credibility is different than yours.  You don't get to decide how I make my choices.

I think the diary and the comments are quite interesting.  You don't.  That's life.  And if you didn't like the diary you didn't have to read it or comment.  Thanks for your opinion.


I am an Edwards Democrat. Visit EENR blog for Progressives
by pioneer111 on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 03:54:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Are you familiar with Roberts Rules of Order (none / 0)

These rules define the manner in which debate occurs.  Using these rules, legislators force their will upon other legislators.  In some cases, Legislator A can force others to WITHDRAW LEGISLATION that A does not like.

Tell me, what is the difference between forcing someone to withdraw something because it is out of order and removing petitions that do not follow the rules?  Rules are there to govern our behavior.  If you do not follow the rules, and you are found out, you will lose, and that is what the rules are for.

What if, in baseball, one team decided that they would not follow the rules?  

This is simply pathetic.  You folks who oppose enforcement of the rules seem to have omitted civics in 6th grade: Rules define society.  When we enforce rules, we ensure that all play on a level field.  If you break the rule, you lose.  That's the way the game is played.  If one person ensures that the rules are followed, that is their right and THEIR OBLIGATION.  Ensuring that rules are followed is the mature approach, and only juveniles oppose the police checking driver's licenses.


by dataguy on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 08:51:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Supressed Voter Choices in 1996 Election (none / 0)

This is standard operating procedure in Illinois. Just a few weeks ago I saw a candidate in a non-partisan election bump off two of his opponents on bad petitions. If you can win an elections by getting the person off the ballot with bad petitions then more power to you. It doesn't take much to get the petitions done the right way. If you get knocked off you can go to court to get reinstated. Also if you get enough good signatures you shouldn't have to worry in the first place. I would hope that someone running for state office would at least know how to do the paperwork.


by Marcus Agrippa on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 11:24:07 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.

Login
Username:

Password: