President Clinton: New Hampshire Broke The Rules Too

by andrewalker08, Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:46:49 AM EST

Just over a month ago, I published a diary titled "Note to the DNC: Apply the rules equally & fairly" in which I argued that the Democratic National Committee had not applied the Delegate Selection Rules for the 2008 Democratic National Convention equally and fairly to all states who were in violation of Rule 11.A.; the " Timing of the Delegate Selection Process" rule.

According to Rule 11.A., Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina were all given specific dates on which to conduct their primaries and caucuses.  When those three states moved their "first determining stage" caucuses and primaries to January 3rd (IA), January 8th (NH), and January 26th (SC), they were all in violation of Rule 11.A. along with Florida and Michigan.

Yesterday, while speaking to the West Side (Indiana) Democratic Club, President Clinton rightly said that "Democrats let New Hampshire go out of turn,"  [Source:  3/24/2008 National Journal/Hotline On Call blog "WJC: NH Voted "Out Of Turn"].   As I said last month, Florida and Michigan were not the only states who broke the rules, but they were the only states that were punished.  And I'm proud to see that President Clinton has brought an heightened awareness to this very important fact.

This past Sunday, as I announced my candidacy for Democratic National Convention delegate from Georgia's 13th Congressional district, I was quoted in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution as saying that if elected, I would indeed vote to restore the voting rights of the two states that were punished for breaking the rules  [Source:  3/23/2008 Atlanta Journal-Constitution article "Choice of Democratic nominee may rest with panel"].  What wasn't included in the article, however, were my comments on the subject of this diary; the fact that five states broke the rules but only two states were punished.  I firmly believe that all five states -- Florida, Iowa, Michigan, New Hampshire, and South Carolina --   should all be punished equally and fairly or they shouldn't be punished at all.  

I don't believe you can pick and choose which states are penalized and which ones are not because that flies in the face of what I believe to be one of the Democratic Party's most cherished philosophies; that philosophy being that we're the Party of those who work hard and play by the rules.

That being said, it would be foolhardy for me to think that the Rules & Bylaws Committee of the Democratic National Committee would go back and retroactively hand down sanctions to Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina for breaking the same rules that Florida and Michigan broke.  So, the only choice at this point is , barring a re-vote in those two states, to fully restore the voting rights of the Sunshine State and the Wolverine State at the Democratic National Convention in Denver this August.




Tags: President Clinton, Delegate Selection Rules (all tags)

Display:
Permalink :: 130 Comments :: Post a Comment


Tips & Recs for MyDD making the AJC... (2.00 / 11)

...Jerome, now your site is known down here in Georgia [as if it wasn't before ;-)]!


by andrewalker08 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:48:34 AM EST

Re: NH broke rules (2.00 / 4)

Your "Note to DNC" was one of the best diaries ever.

I'm so glad Bill Clinton is bringing this up.  I'd also add that the State of New Hampshire publicly stated they were OK with Florida's new date because it still came after all the earlier states of IA, NH, SC and NV.  

from Union Leader:

Gardner OK with Florida primary jump to Jan. 29
By BEVERLEY WANG
The Associated Press
Tuesday, May. 22, 2007

http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx? headline=Gardner+OK+with+Florida+primary +jump+to+Jan.+29&articleId=41c03c43- 176e-4a88-8254-ac8b25789b7e


by moevaughn on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:56:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Reality Check (1.75 / 8)

CLINTON RHETORIC: "Let's talk about the agreement. The only agreement I entered into was not to campaign in Michigan and Florida. It had nothing to do with not seating the delegates. I think that's an important distinction. I did not campaign... that's not the case at all. I signed an agreement not to campaign in Michigan and Florida."

REALITY: Clinton Said "It's Clear" That The Michigan Primary Won't "Count For Anything"

Clinton Said "It's Clear" That The Michigan Primary Won't Count For Anything. Clinton, on why she stayed on the ballot for the Michigan primary said, "Well, you know, people in Michigan are flat on their backs. They have the highest unemployment rate in America. They are now grappling finally with what they are going to do with the auto industry. 1 in 10 jobs in America is tied to the auto industry which is -- the American auto industry, which as we know is centered in Michigan. You know, it's clear this election they're having isn't going to count for anything. But I just personally didn't want to set up a situation where the Republicans are going to be campaigning between now and whenever. And then after the nomination we have to go in and repair the damage and be ready to win Michigan in November 2008." [NHPR Interview, 10/11/07]

Clinton Campaign Said She Was "Not Participating in the Michigan Primary." Clinton spokesman Mo Elleithee said, "Clinton signed a pledge saying she will not campaign. She is not participating in the Michigan primary because she is not campaigning there. She is honoring the pledge." [New Hampshire Union Leader, 10/11/07]

RHETORIC: "Now, the DNC made the determination that they would not seat the delegates, but I was not party to that"

REALITY: Clinton Top Delegate Adviser Voted To Strip Michigan And Florida Of Their Delegates

Clinton Top Delegate Adviser Harold Ickes Voted For Democratic Party Rules That Stripped Michigan And Florida Of Their Delegates. "Harold Ickes, a top adviser to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign who voted for Democratic Party rules that stripped Michigan and Florida of their delegates, now is arguing against the very penalty he helped pass. In a conference call Saturday, the longtime Democratic Party member contended the DNC should reconsider its tough sanctions on the two states, which held early contests in violation of party rules. He said millions of voters in Michigan and Florida would be otherwise disenfranchised - before acknowledging moments later that he had favored the sanctions." [AP, 2/17/08]

RHETORIC: "The people of those two states disregarded adamantly the DNC's decision that they would not seat the delegates. They came out and voted. If they had been influenced by the DNC, despite the fact that there was very little campaign, if any, they would have stayed home but they wanted their voices heard. More than 2 million people came out. I mean, it was record turnout for a primary. Florida, in particular, is sensitive to being disenfranchised because of what happened to them in the last elections. I have said that I would ask my delegates to vote to seat."

REALITY: Many Voters Stayed Home Because They Knew Their Votes Would Not Select Delegates To the Nominating Convention

TNR: "Knowing That Their Ballots Meant Nothing, Many Voters [In Michigan And Florida] Stayed Home." "Without ads and stump speeches--Obama's name wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan--the actual primary votes in these states were meaningless beauty contests, and perhaps not even that. Knowing that their ballots meant nothing, many voters stayed home. And, as everyone expected, Hillary romped to victory on the basis of her brand name and voters' lack of familiarity with the alternatives." [Editorial, TNR, 2/8/08]

The Pledge Clinton Signed

WHEREAS, Over a year ago, the Democratic National Committee established a 2008 nominating calendar;

WHEREAS, this calendar honors the racial, ethnic, economic and geographic diversity of our party and our country;

WHEREAS, the DNC also honored the traditional role of retail politics early in the nominating process, to insure that money alone will not determine our presidential nominee;

WHEREAS, it is the desire of Presidential campaigns, the DNC, the states and the American people to bring finality, predictability and common sense to the nominating calendar.

THEREFORE, I, [Name], Democratic Candidate for President, pledge I shall not campaign or participate in any state which schedules a presidential election primary or caucus before Feb. 5, 2008, except for the states of Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina, as "campaigning" is defined by rules and regulations of the DNC.

POLITICIANS AND EDITORIAL BOARDS SAY THAT THE MICHIGAN AND FLORIDA DELEGATES SHOULD NOT COUNT

Clinton Backer Bob Kerrey Said "You Don't Change The Rules In The Middle Of The Game. Period" When Asked If the Delegates From Florida And Michigan Should Count. "You don't change the rules in the middle of the game. Period," said former Nebraska Senator Bob Kerrey, The New School's president, when asked if the delegates from the Florida and Michigan primaries should be represented at the Democratic National Convention in August. Scoopy ran into Kerrey on Sunday at Chelsea Piers, where Kerrey had taken his young son and a friend bowling. "No new vote and no new caucuses, either. Just stick to the rules that they agreed to," Kerrey said firmly. The Democratic National Committee stripped both Florida and Michigan of all their delegates because, defying party rules, they held their primaries before Feb. 5. The candidates all agreed to abide by that decision and not campaign in those states. Barack Obama withdrew his name from the ballot in Michigan and didn't compete in Florida. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote in both states and now says their delegates should be counted toward the total. Although Kerrey endorsed Clinton in December, he clearly doesn't endorse her position on the Michigan and Florida delegates. [The Villager, 2/13/08]

Nancy Pelosi Said That Florida And Michigan Delegates Should Not Be Seated If Those Delegates Would Decide The Nomination. Nancy Pelosi had one more stunner in the interview: She said the Florida and Michigan delegates should not be seated if those delegates would decide the nomination. "Well, I don't think that any states that operated outside the rules of the party can be dispositive of who the nominee is. That is to say they can't make the difference because then we would have no rules," she said. Pelosi added, "But I do think that the best outcome for us is if one of the candidates pulls ahead and this issue is disposed of long before we get to the convention. We certainly don't want to ignore Florida and Michigan, but we can't ignore the rules which everyone else played by." [San Francisco Chronicle, 2/15/08]

Tom Harkin Said He Staunchly Opposed Seating The Delegates From Michigan And Florida. Tom Harkin said he will staunchly oppose seating delegates chosen in the Michigan and Florida primaries for the same reason he will uphold the superdelegates' independent vote: It's the rules. Michigan and Florida Democrats broke the rules when they moved their primaries ahead of Feb. 5 without permission, Harkin said. "No way I'd ever be in favor of seating them," the senator said. [Telegraph Herald, 2/17/08]

Al Sharpton Said Seating Delegates From Florida And Michigan At The DNC Would Be A Grave Injustice. Seating delegates from Florida and Michigan at the Democratic National Convention would be a grave injustice, the Rev. Al Sharpton said Wednesday in a break with prominent civil rights leaders. "I firmly believe that changing the rules now, and seating delegates from Florida and Michigan at this point would not only violate the Democratic Party's rules of fairness, but also would be a grave injustice," Sharpton said in a letter to Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean. [AP, 2/13/08]

Cleveland Plain Dealer: Clinton Wants To Seat The Michigan And Florida Delegates And The Obama Campaign Dismisses That As "Hogwash"; The Obama Campaign Is "Right About That." "Clinton says Michigan and Florida should be seated and their delegates divided in accord with the primary vote. She's won support from NAACP Chairman Julian Bond, who says the party is disenfranchising minority voters. The Obama campaign dismisses that as hogwash. They say Obama ignored both states at the national party's request and shouldn't be penalized for playing by the rules. Even if we hadn't endorsed Obama for the Democratic nomination, we'd have to say he's right about that." [Editorial, Cleveland Plain Dealer, 2/22/08]

Austin American Statesman: Clinton Wants To Seat The Delegates From Michigan And Florida. "That Would Be Patently Wrong" and "Grossly Unfair To Obama." "Clinton, who won the most votes in the outlaw primaries in Michigan and Florida, now wants those delegates recognized and seated at the Democratic Party national convention in Denver in August. One of her top advisers, Harold Ickes, a Democratic National Committee member who voted to strip delegates from those states, now wants them seated. That would be patently wrong. Party officials told the legislatures in both states they would lose their delegates if they moved their primaries ahead of Super Tuesday, Feb. 5. And the party's presidential candidates agreed not to campaign in states being punished by the Democratic National Committee for setting early primaries...Seating the 156 Michigan and 210 Florida delegates would be grossly unfair to Obama, who, unlike Clinton, didn't go to Florida... The only fair thing for Democratic officials to do is to stick to their guns and ignore the Michigan and Florida delegations or redo the primaries." [Editorial, Austin American Statesman, 2/18/08]

New York Post: "No Changing The Rules In The Middle Of The Game" When It Comes To Michigan And Florida. "No changing the rules in the middle of the game. Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean must be prepared to deliver that message to Sen. Hillary Clinton and her allies. With a razor-thin delegate margin separating them and ever-fewer states left on the campaign calendar, Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama are working all angles to get to 2,025 - the number needed to win their party's presidential nomination. Which is why the Clinton forces are looking at Michigan and Florida." [Editorial, Editorial, TNR, 2/8/08] ">New York Post, 2/11/08]

TNR: When It Became Clear That Clinton Faced A Potential Battle For Delegates, She Began To Demand The Rules Be Changed In The Middle Of the Game. "But as soon as it became clear, in the wake of Iowa and on the eve of South Carolina, that Clinton potentially faced an extended battle for delegates, she began to demand that the rules be changed in the middle of the game. Her campaign has been arguing that the non-contested elections in Michigan and Florida should be made retroactively meaningful--and, therefore, that Clinton should be handed a gift of nearly 200 delegates. The Clinton team has wrapped its case in the logic of voter disenfranchisement. `I hear all the time from people in Florida and Michigan that they want their voices heard in selecting the Democratic nominee,' Clinton has said. There is a perfectly cogent case to be made that Floridians and Michiganders deserve their say. (Some of our best friends and elderly relatives reside in those states.) The way to address this complaint is to schedule new elections so that candidates can advertise, make speeches, organize voters, distribute yard signs--you know, do `democracy,' a concept Clinton seems not to understand. The DNC, if it does decide to redress Clinton's complaint, needs to do so immediately." [Editorial, TNR, 2/8/08]

http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factche ck/2008/02/22/reality_check_on_clintons_ clai.php


--1jphusseinb-- she's not a monster, as far as I know--diplomat Sinbad, making the world safe--all bluster, no cattle--
by 1jpb on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:08:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reality Check (none / 0)

Not exactly sure why this was given a hidden rating.


by zep93 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:19:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reality Check (2.00 / 1)

It's not accurate to say Clinton "demanded to change the rules in the middle of the game." Clinton is arguing what many other people are arguing in Florida and Michigan--that the DNC is making a big mistake to throw away two states for the general election. Of course, Barack Obama is arguing to change the rules in the middle of the game, because he's saying on the one hand that they'll support whatever decision is made by the DNC and the states, but he's threatening legal action against the agreement made in Michigan between the DNC and the state! And, of course the Obama campaign is trying to push the argument that superdelegates are supposed to vote the way their state votes; but as soon as someone brings up Richardson, Kennedy and Kerry--who would have to support Clinton under Obama Rules--then they shut the fuck up about that argument.

It's patently ridiculous for Obama supporters to push the meme that Clinton is changing the rules midway through the game, when the ultimate problem is losing two states because the DNC won't count the votes. That hurts both Obama and Clinton in the general against McCain.

How stupid Obama supporters must be to think he can just eliminate 2 states; do Dems really have that luxury? No. We Don't.

But, worse, after 2000, for the Democratic Party to allow disenfranchisement of minority voters and VETERANS, for God's sake, after what the GOP did to us, it's not just patently ridiculous for Obama supporters to keep making these idiotic arguments, it's truly offensive!

We've had 8 years of dictatorship which has ruined our country; horrifically murdered 4000 Americans and millions of Iraqis, forced thousands of others to suffer heinous injury and maiming, forced millions to seek refuge in surrounding countries, strengthened Iran in the Middle East, and bankrupted our country.

THAT is what NOT COUNTING THE VOTES IN 2000 cost us. And, that is what Obama is now arguing, with your support, and with the acquiescence of Howard "48-state-strategy" Dean.

Shame on you.


"I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it's hell." Harry S Truman
by Tennessean on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:36:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

leave florida out of it... (none / 0)

this isn't even remotely close to 2000.  if you hadn't noticed, in 2000, we were talking about constitutionally-mandated votes.  there is nothing in our constitution about political parties or how they choose their nominee.

2000 isn't what did in florida democrats.  in fact, 2000 gave us a splinter of hope (that quickly faded when that hope met with reality).  it is a fact that florida democrats were decimated in the 1990s, in part by the republican surge and in part because the clintons tried to take over the florida democratic party.  this lead to a huge drop in funds given to the florida democratic party and the closing of our state party headquarters (as well as laying off its staff).  the fact that hillary did her part in destroying a progressive (southern) state democratic party has not been forgotten.

screw her.  florida democrats don't give a flying fsck about who is the nominee.  we knew that our delegates wouldn't be seated at the convention when we voted.  and we still turned out (as it pointed out above).  we do not need your approval to justify our vote.  we don't need anything from tennessee.  stop dragging us through hillary's mud just because she couldn't win votes elsewhere.  that's her problem.

we got plenty of our own in florida...


peace. love. equality. still waiting after 40 years...
by bored now on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:51:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yeah, Bush counted votes-- the first (2.00 / 1)

round anyway.

Obama wants to stand in the way of 1.7 million Florida voters-- counting ZERO.


by chieflytrue on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:08:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yeah, Bush counted votes-- the first (none / 0)

Your comment is ridiculous.

Everyone (including HRC and Ickes, who voted for the exclusion) knew those votes wouldn't count before they were cast.


--1jphusseinb-- she's not a monster, as far as I know--diplomat Sinbad, making the world safe--all bluster, no cattle--
by 1jpb on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:08:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yeah, Bush counted votes-- the first (none / 0)

So what? That was then and this is now.
Obama rejected revotes in FL and MI - and that will help win those states in the General?
ha!

The Truth is Obama was noncommittal and wishy washy on the revotes for the purpose of letting the clock run out to favor HIM.

As usual - it's all about Obama's shortterm interest - not the Dem Party.


Hillary/Obama08
by annefrank on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:32:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yeah, Bush counted votes-- the first (none / 0)

He was always open to a fair revote.  But, once Humpty Dumpty was broken, it's hard to go back in time and put him back together.

The record shows that BHO has been a very effective financial and campaign supporter of other Democrats.

The Clintons have a record of putting themselves first:

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200102/sc hneider


--1jphusseinb-- she's not a monster, as far as I know--diplomat Sinbad, making the world safe--all bluster, no cattle--
by 1jpb on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:21:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: President Clinton: New Hampshire Broke The Ru (2.00 / 3)

The point had more to do with those States being first and in the order that they usually have been in the past.  And my understanding is, they moved their primaries up because others States were doing the same.


by Ellinorianne on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:51:24 AM EST

bill is just getting pissy because voters... (1.37 / 8)

in democratic primaries keep rejecting his wife.  really, you just have to ignore him.  he's a diminishing asset at best who seems to go out of his way to alienate base democrats...


peace. love. equality. still waiting after 40 years...
by bored now on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:07:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: bill is just getting pissy because voters... (2.00 / 4)

Where is your proof?  Do you have a link?


by Dave B on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:12:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: bill is just getting pissy because voters... (1.66 / 3)

rip van winkle?  did you just wake up?

try any major new source -- read the posts here -- and you will see that barack obama has won more states, more votes and more delegates.  it's absolutely shocking that you would not know this.

otoh, if you have contrary information, please post it (and inform the nytimes and the washpost).  you would be making HUGE news...


peace. love. equality. still waiting after 40 years...
by bored now on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:35:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: bill is just getting pissy because voters... (2.00 / 5)

Wow, your patronizing tone and yawning sarcasm have convinced me!  It's all over!  What are we doing even arguing about it?  After all, don't we read the news?  My mama always said to me, "If it's in the news, it must be true."

Let's all disregard the fact that there is less than a 1% difference between these two candidates in popular votes, with 10 states and Puerto Rico still left to vote.  That little fact disrupts the current Obama/NBC narrative of the day that it's impossible for HRC to catch up.  

Why, the media said it, so it must be true.


The universe is a casual place, not a suit-and-tie affair.
by mtnspirit on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:46:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

it is over... (2.00 / 1)

we are so divided that we can't even agree on BASIC FACTS.  this debate was begun by someone who doesn't seem to know that barack has won more contests, more states, more delegates, more votes.

now we could assume that he's an idiot.  but it's safer to assume that hillary's supporters are so desperate that they feel they have to challenge everything and force obama to fight with hillary and her supporters all the way to november 4th.

assuming that the poster is a democrat (which isn't necessarily the case).

now i don't know about you, but i take a long view on this.  this bitterly divisive primary will cost us the white house in 2008.  candidates who come out of bitterly divisive primaries simply do not win the general election.  that's a given.

but now that we are literally fighting over the meaning of "is," democrats are set back at least a decade.  while i think the debate over the future of the party is an important one, i think that people who want to set us back decades -- just because their preferred candidate couldn't win the support of democratic voters in 2008 -- should get out of the way.  we're all losers here, and we get to blame NO ONE but ourselves for john mccain's election this fall.  for some of hillary's "supporters," that's the only point left...


peace. love. equality. still waiting after 40 years...
by bored now on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:26:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: it is over... (none / 0)

That basically sums it up. I love when regular people repeat campaign talking points. Like there is only a 1% difference between the two of them. Only the Clinton's can claim a victory out of losing by 1%.


by Erik on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:48:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: it is over... (2.00 / 1)

which campaign is arguing that florida is beyond the reach of the democratic nominee?  or that this bitterly divisive primary can only lead to the election of john mccain?

i just want to know who's talking points i'm repeating...


peace. love. equality. still waiting after 40 years...
by bored now on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:43:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: bill is just getting pissy because voters... (2.00 / 5)

Please get a hold of yourself. Bill Clinton has done more for the Democratic party then you and Obama and Bill Burton and Fluffy Plouffe and Axelrod will do in ten lifetimes each. Please buy a mirror and look in into it you are an annoying gnat.


by coolofthenight on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:29:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

bill is the past... (2.00 / 2)

and should be put away with the rest of the presidential relics.  this election is (or, at least, should be) about the future of the democratic party and the country.  leave the cold war behind, it's a new age for america...


peace. love. equality. still waiting after 40 years...
by bored now on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:50:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: bill is the past... (2.00 / 2)

"should be put away with the rest of the presidential relics?"...huh!!???...you better hope you don't get what you wish for, bored now...older Americans make up a HUGE portion of the Democratic party...without us, NO candidate is going ANYWHERE...this disrespect for the "older" generation, the Bill's who got the party to where it "was", is what is really maddening to me. Where is the inclusiveness and unity in your message?


This one's for Hillary!!
by cplummer on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:17:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: bill is the past... (2.00 / 2)

Clinton built a new coalition that actually was electable not once but twice. Say what you will but in the 90's life was better much better than the Reagan and Bush era.
The ironic thing is that Hillary's voting record in the Senate is slightly more liberal than Obama yet you trust him to bring the party tot he left. He wills but only if it is good for him.
You can't let dogma get in the way of a win. Bill Clinton knew that winning first was the most important thing.

by coolofthenight on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:09:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: bill is the past... (none / 0)

i don't know what "new coalition" you're talking about; feel free to expand on that.  since i did elections during the 90s, i can't remember any new democrats coming out to vote, but i'll be happy to hear the details of this new coalition you speak of.

since national journal just named obama the most liberal senator (and hillary is still closer to joe lieberman than barack), i'll let that comment skid.  although i did take note of the assumption underlying it.

if the clintons' had a system or methodology for winning, it apparently is non-transferable.  the clintons have back 5 florida democrats for statewide office and exactly one has won (alex sink, who was uniquely qualified).  i'm not big believer in the "bill clinton is a political genius" since he's never offered anything that could be duplicated at the ballot box.  i still remember his promise to insure that marjorie margolis-mezvinsky would be re-elected if she voted for clinton's budget.  she did, he didn't.

florida democrats got screwed, too, during the clinton administration.  the clintons were eager to enforce their ideological leanings upon southern democrats and florida hasn't elected too many democrats since.  they didn't contribute to either of bill nelson's wins (and i won't blame them for his loss, either).  their interference almost cost bob butterworth one election.  the clintons may be popular in florida (and i'm not actually disputing that), but they certainly don't have a strong record of winning elections in the state...


peace. love. equality. still waiting after 40 years...
by bored now on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 09:54:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Bill has done what for the party??? (2.00 / 2)

He won a couple of presidential elections.

Beyond that...he moved the party to the right, passed NAFTA, lost TONS AND TONS of house and Senate seats, lost us the presidency in 2000, and morally tainted the party with his sex scandals for about 6 years.

Oh and he saddled us with Terry MacAuliffe as DNC chair - the worst DNC chair in the history of the DNC.


by Sinbad Sinbad on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:07:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bill has done what for the party??? (none / 0)

Like Dean is doing well? Puleeze


by coolofthenight on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:27:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bill has done what for the party??? (2.00 / 1)

What is Dean doing wrong???

Since he's taken over, we've won back tons of seats. State parties are being rebuilt. We're going after seats that seemed unimaginable, becuase we're recruiting better.

He's not the fundraiser that Terry MacAuliffe was...but he's not raising tons of dirty corporate money, either...


by Sinbad Sinbad on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:47:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Could it be that Dean was just in the right place (2.00 / 1)

...At the right time?

After all, the Republicans weren't at their top form dealing with scandals from Tom Delay's ethics to Mark Foley's sexcapades.

Maybe, just maybe, Howard Dean was lucky.


by andrewalker08 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:35:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bill has done what for the party??? (2.00 / 2)

Look around Sinbad. Dems arguing with Dems. A convoluted mess with FL and MI and the very strong likelihood that  what should have been a slam dunk Potus after Bush shits the bed.  Yes he is a fine leader.


by coolofthenight on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:02:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Ingrate-- Bill Clinton-- the Miseducation of Kos (2.00 / 3)

When people come here from Kos, you can tell they have received their crazy, inaccurate, foolhardy, bogus indoctrination firsthand.  Lies, lies, and stupid lies.

Firstly, Obama's given us nothing.  

Secondly, Bill Clinton gave us:

1) The longest, biggest economic expansion in modern history since WWII.

  1. The largest jump in income for all demographics, with African Americans benefiting the most.
  2. The most minority appointments to positions of power up until that time in all of American history.
  3. A turnaround from the largest budget deficits in history to not just balanced budgets, but budget surpluses.
  4. The end to one genocide, and the end of one dictator's rule with almost no loss of American life.  Heard of Millosovic?  He started a genocide that Bill Clinton singlehandedly ended.
  5. The negotiation of an Irish peace process that ended their terrorism.

And so much more.

Chris Matthews hates Bill Clinton with your same passion and lamented on television "Bill Clinton's economic record is UNASSAILABLE!"

And he was sad when he said it, because it's true.


by chieflytrue on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:50:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

the Miseducation of Kos (2.00 / 2)

Kos Kidz benefitted from their parents' prosperity in the 90s.
But now they want a rockstar to run the government and improve the Economy.

{{scary!})


Hillary/Obama08
by annefrank on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:45:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Then Dean wrote a crappy rule... (2.00 / 1)

and since rulz are rulz and BO insists on following them...follow them.

Plain and simple.


by Shazone on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:10:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Then Dean wrote a crappy rule... (none / 0)

I don't think Dean wrote these rules.


by Ellinorianne on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:01:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What difference does that make... (none / 0)

Dean's DNC wrote those rulz.  So BO should abide by them, crappy or not...a rule is a rule is a rule...according to Bo And Fans.


by Shazone on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:29:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (2.00 / 0)


The State of New Hampshire publicly stated they were OK with Florida's new date because it still came after all the earlier states of IA, NH, SC and NV.  

from Union Leader:

Gardner OK with Florida primary jump to Jan. 29
By BEVERLEY WANG
The Associated Press
Tuesday, May. 22, 2007

http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx? headline=Gardner+OK+with+Florida+primary +jump+to+Jan.+29&articleId=41c03c43- 176e-4a88-8254-ac8b25789b7e


by moevaughn on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:57:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (2.00 / 1)

The whole thing is a clusterfuck but all the candidates agreed not to campaign in Florida and Michigan.  They all agreed to take their names off the ballots.  That's the issue with me.  


by Ellinorianne on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 03:03:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (2.00 / 2)

No - all the candidates were on the FL ballot.
Obama was the only candidate to break DNC rules by airing TV ads.
Oh wait - doesn't Obama follow the rules?

FL votes and delegates should count because the purpose of the rule was to allow the 4 states to go first.
Florida's primary date was changed - but still adhered to the PURPOSE of the rule - since the FL primary occurred after the 4 states had voted.


Hillary/Obama08
by annefrank on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:51:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (none / 0)

And Clinton PHYSICALLY went to Florida?  Yes?  And those ads were aired on National Programs, yes?

And just the fact that so many didn't go to the polls because they were told their votes didn't count means more to me than those who went.  

I think those who never went were the truly "disenfranchised".

I think it's sad that no one is willing to pay for another election.  Both States broke the rules, arcane and silly but still broken.


by Ellinorianne on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:36:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

umm (2.00 / 1)

Clinton went to the state and held a rally AFTER the polls closed.

Also, Clinton surrogates Corzine, Rendell, and the pin head Carville have all offered to pay for ANOTHER election (or half of the costs).

Where was Obama for the other half?


vote blue in 2008
by sepulvedaj3 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:52:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (none / 0)

Obama had a press conference in FL. But it's always Oops! and nothing more when Obama does it.

Edwards never told his supporters their votes wouldn't count.
That was Obama.

But at the same time - Obama was telling Repubs and Indys to switch their voter registration and be a "Dem for a day" and vote for HIM in the primary - then later switch back before Nov.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community /post/jacksonvilleforobama/CrsJ

The Ohio election board is investigating Limbaugh for encouraging the very same thing.  It's against the law in Ohio to mess with the electoral process.


Hillary/Obama08
by annefrank on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 10:30:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: President Clinton: New Hampshire Broke The Ru (2.00 / 7)

Totally agree with you. 100%!


by Fleaflicker on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:51:25 AM EST

Re: President Clinton: New Hampshire Broke The Ru (2.00 / 2)

New Hampshire, Iowa, and South Carolina were chosen by the DNC to go early. New Hampshire's state constitution requires they be x number of weeks before the first "similar contest". When Florida and Michigan broke the rules they knew they would set off a domino effect pushing Iowa and New Hampshire earlier and earlier and potentially into 2007. They did it anyway.

The Sec. of State in New Hampshire patiently waited until the last appeal in Michigan failed, very late in the process, before finally setting New Hampshire's date for the exact amount of time before Michigan that the NH constitution requires.

Florida and Michigan played games, and they lost.


Your old role is rapidly aging. Please get out of the new one if you can't lend a hand, for the times they are a changing.
by Travis Stark on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:18:58 AM EST

Essentially you're saying that state law... (2.00 / 3)

...Trumps Party rules, at least as it pertains to the state of New Hampshire.

State law in Florida and Michigan set the dates of their presidential preference primaries as January 15th and January 29th.

If state statute dictates the date of an election, then who is the Democratic National Committee to come in and say the state's election results don't count.

However, once again, it's a case of selectively applying the rules here.  The Rules & Bylaws Committee agreed that New Hampshire state law superseded the 2008 Delegate Selection Rules, but they didn't agree that Florida and Michigan state law superseded the 2008 Delegate Selection Rules.


by andrewalker08 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:27:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Essentially what I'm saying (2.00 / 2)

is that MI and FL knew what they were setting off when they did it. They knew exactly what would happen.


Your old role is rapidly aging. Please get out of the new one if you can't lend a hand, for the times they are a changing.
by Travis Stark on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:04:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Essentially what I'm saying (2.00 / 5)

You mean Florida's Republican Governor and Florida's Republican controlled legislature knew what they were doing when they moved Florida's primary. Yes, I think they know exactly what they were doing and so did the DNC when they choose to disenfranchise Florida's core Democrat voters and not count our votes.


by grlpatriot on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:08:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Essentially what I'm saying (2.00 / 3)

How quickly you excuse all of FL's Democratic legislators, who also voted to move the primary.


Your old role is rapidly aging. Please get out of the new one if you can't lend a hand, for the times they are a changing.
by Travis Stark on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:24:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Ouch!!! (none / 0)

that had to hurt


-- be excellent to each other
by kindthoughts on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:52:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ouch!!! (none / 0)

Only when I watch people hit themselves in the head.


by grlpatriot on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:16:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

right... (none / 0)

you know he got a point though. Maybe you should address it.


-- be excellent to each other
by kindthoughts on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:42:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I did (none / 0)

up thread.


by grlpatriot on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 03:48:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

you addressed (none / 0)

the point of dem lawmakes voting for it?
Maybe I am not seeing it.
-- be excellent to each other
by kindthoughts on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:30:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Essentially what I'm saying (2.00 / 4)

Yep, I do excuse them. The Gov also attached a bill to the primary move bill to change the optical voting machines to scan, paper trail machines. What were the Dems to do? Were they supposed to vote against it. Damned if they did, damned if they didn't. Dems were forced into it.

I place full blame where it should rightly go -- on the Republican Gov, Republican controlled legislature, and Dean for stripping all our delegates. At least the RNC only penalized by 1/2 and allowed the candidates to campaign here.


by grlpatriot on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:13:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Essentially what I'm saying (2.00 / 2)

Yes, they should have voted against it. They're not there to get led around by the nose.


Your old role is rapidly aging. Please get out of the new one if you can't lend a hand, for the times they are a changing.
by Travis Stark on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 03:20:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Essentially what I'm saying (2.00 / 3)

Do you know why they voted that way?

Typical Republican dirty tricks. Florida's Democrats wanted to get rid of the e-voting machines that kept counting votes only for Republicans. The Republicans finally agreed, but they tied the legislation banning the voting machines to moving up the state primary, in violation of the DNC rules.

http://journals.democraticunderground.co m/flyarm/240

As usual, the Republicans are responsible for screwing up our elections. :-(


The world cannot survive four more years of Bush.
by madamab on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:37:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Essentially what I'm saying (2.00 / 1)

Well then they made their choice. They could have probably refused to vote for that bill and brought up another clean one maybe? In any event they knew what that bill did to the primary, and they pretty much knew the consequences. Maybe some mental genius even called the DNC to see if maybe they were bluffing? I suspect maybe they did.


Your old role is rapidly aging. Please get out of the new one if you can't lend a hand, for the times they are a changing.
by Travis Stark on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 03:22:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Essentially what I'm saying (none / 0)

and how would they get that passed through a Republican legislature and Repug Gov?


vote blue in 2008
by sepulvedaj3 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:54:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Essentially what I'm saying (none / 0)

As I understand it, the Republicans attached the date change to a very popular Transportation bill.  Democrats submitted an amendment to remove the date change from the bill, but it was turned down in the Republican-dominated committee.  

To NOT VOTE or to OPPOSE that transportation bill would have given Republicans a very large hammer to use against Democrats in the general.  


The universe is a casual place, not a suit-and-tie affair.
by mtnspirit on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:51:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

indeed, we did... (none / 0)

i haven't talked to a single democratic voter in florida who didn't know about the sanction, didn't blame the republican legislator for it, and who had no expectation that we would be seated at the convention.  we voted anyway.  we voted in record numbers, despite the knowledge that florida's delegation was sanctioned.

most floridians just want this whole embarrassment to go away (at least from what i can tell in the i-4 corridor).  florida isn't going to be in the democratic column anyway this november, so it doesn't really matter for 2008...


peace. love. equality. still waiting after 40 years...
by bored now on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:37:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: President Clinton: New Hampshire (none / 0)

So the Dem Party says "tough" to FL and MI voters because your legislatures screwed you?

I don't know the details of MI - but the FL Republican legislature introduced bills to change the date - and inserted an item that would make it virtually impossible for the Dems to vote against it: a requirement that all voting machines must have paper ballots - an issue the Dems have supported for years.

If Dems had voted against it - there would have been a slew of GOP ads mocking the Dems.


Hillary/Obama08
by annefrank on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:57:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: NH Broke The Rules Too (2.00 / 6)

Couldn't agree with this diary more.  To see the DNC actually quoted as saying in justification of stripping FL and MI of their delegates that only a few states were "allowed to break the rules" just flew in the face of all reason.  They've unfortunately made a joke of this primary season, and I honestly do not see how this can possibly close out without the DNC (and likely the ultimate winning candidate) being badly tarnished and the primary being considered a "foul" regardless of the resolution.  If FL and MI are not counted and Barack goes on to win the nomination through superdelegate choices, everybody will know that 2.5 million voters were silenced in arriving at the candidate who would be losing if those votes had been counted.  But if FL and MI are counted (and I do feel there is a reasonable means of doing so, by giving Barack 33% of the uncommitted votes in MI since there were three candidates represented by that category), Barack's camp will inevitably say she only won by breaking the established rules--despite the fact the rules were in fact broken by his camp and long before the determination will be made...with the end result being that supporters of one or the other candidate will feel the other candidate stole the election.  Yes, the DNC has truly created a fiasco, and I can only hope that big changes are made at the top and to the way we run our primaries in the future.  


HRC: "...not a vote to rush to war--it...puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President, we say to him 'Use these powers wisely and as a last resort.'"
by ChargedFan on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:22:27 AM EST

Re: NH Broke The Rules Too (2.00 / 0)

Couldn't agree with you more. And to think, I supported Dean for president. If this is how well he manages the DNC, which is almost bankrupt, just imagine what he would have done to the country. He might have done slightly better than Bush. I find no comfort in that what so ever.


by grlpatriot on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:50:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: NH Broke The Rules Too (none / 0)

Hmmm, point well made.  But look on the bright side, even if our country would be perhaps bankrupt as has seemed to happen to the DNC under his leadership, at least we would not likely be in this war.  So I'd have to think we'd be much better off in at least some ways.  


HRC: "...not a vote to rush to war--it...puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President, we say to him 'Use these powers wisely and as a last resort.'"
by ChargedFan on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:27:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Look at the sizes of the states... (2.00 / 1)

IA, NH, NV, SC -- none of these states carries a lot of delegates. They represent different parts of the country, and even a sweep of all four states leaves the race competitive going into Super Tuesday.

MI is more than twice as big as the biggest of these states, SC. FL is more than four times as big as SC.

If MI and FL were allowed to move ahead of Super Tuesday, they would, by their size, be stealing the fire from the states that participate that day.

As someone who has historically lived in states for whom the Primary is academic by the time it reaches us -- I resent the efforts of these big states to step out of turn and make my state's vote even more insignificant to the outcome of the race.


by baudelairien on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:21:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

it's not just that... (2.00 / 3)

allowing the small states to go first not only requires that politicians engage in retail politics, but it allows them to gain public support without a lot of money.  florida disallows both.  it takes a lot of money to be competitive in florida, it's a huge state geographically, and even state rep candidates don't do the kind of retail politics that are common in iowa and new hampshire.

but hillary's rich, so that wouldn't have mattered...


peace. love. equality. still waiting after 40 years...
by bored now on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:30:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: it's not just that... (2.00 / 1)

Good point -- it's not only the allotted delegates that skew the competition if large states are front loaded in the season: It raises the barrier to compete.
by baudelairien on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 03:51:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Look at the sizes of the states... (none / 0)

Interesting and seemingly valid viewpoint.  It's just a shame the DNC did not give any such logical reasoning for "only allowing a few states to break the rules" and instead relying on such ridiculous reasoning.


HRC: "...not a vote to rush to war--it...puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President, we say to him 'Use these powers wisely and as a last resort.'"
by ChargedFan on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:32:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Look at the sizes of the states... (none / 0)

Wasn't CA the first state to move up their primary to Feb. 5?


Hillary/Obama08
by annefrank on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 09:02:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Severity of violation (2.00 / 2)

The violations were not deemed serious enough to punish, and may have been worked out with the DNC in the first place.  I'm inclined to think that the violations were more due to logistics than anything else: the order of primaries wasn't changed, to my knowledge.  New Hampshire's date has been moved repeatedly over time so that it remains the first primary (and Iowa remains the first caucus).

The spirit of the rules was not damaged, so it wasn't punished.  Both Florida and Michigan went against the spirit of the rules, so they were punished.


You can't stop the signal.

President "That One"

by Dracomicron on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:22:37 AM EST

New Hampshire Broke The Rules Too (2.00 / 4)

If Barack Obama is the nominee because of playing favoritism with states, then, a good chunk of the DEMOCRATIC VOTERS will go against the spirit of voting for him.


by Check077 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:35:56 AM EST

Re: New Hampshire Broke The Rules Too (2.00 / 1)

I doubt it.  The order of the primaries has zero effect on my life, while gas prices, budget deficits and foreign wars do. Seven months from now no one will care about this.  


Consider that everything which happens, happens justly, and if thou observest carefully, thou wilt find it to be so. -Marcus Aurelius
by Blue Neponset on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:47:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

25% of Floridians feel differently (2.00 / 5)

Howard Dean and Barack Obama may insist Florida's Democratic presidential primary was meaningless, but a new poll shows Florida Democrats aren't buying it, and one in four may not back their party's nominee in November if Florida winds up with no voice in the nomination.


by grlpatriot on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:05:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 25% of Floridians feel differently (2.00 / 1)

Not about NH.  The only people I hear complaining about NH are hard core Clinton's supporters.  No one else thinks NH's "rule breaking" is a big deal.  


Consider that everything which happens, happens justly, and if thou observest carefully, thou wilt find it to be so. -Marcus Aurelius
by Blue Neponset on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:26:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 25% of Floridians feel differently (2.00 / 2)

Are you missing the point on purpose?

The point is not to have a problem with NH (HRC won there.  Remember?), the problem is in punishing MI and FL for essentially breaking the same rule.  The solution is to let them all count.  Don't punish any of them.

Then fire Howard Dean.  And excommunicate Donna Brazile.


On the train thanks to HRC...
by BRockNYC on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:41:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

you forgot crown hillary... (1.50 / 4)

and begin the purge...


peace. love. equality. still waiting after 40 years...
by bored now on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:51:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 25% of Floridians feel differently (2.00 / 1)

No one cares about this.  That is my main point.  A poll of FL Democratic voters in March isn't a good barometer for a nationwide GE seven months from now.


Consider that everything which happens, happens justly, and if thou observest carefully, thou wilt find it to be so. -Marcus Aurelius
by Blue Neponset on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:53:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Amen. (2.00 / 2)

I'm with you on Donna Brazile.  The woman has lost the White House for the Democrats how many times in the past 20 years?

We shouldn't be seeking her advice on pizza toppings, let alone Democratic party strategy.


by Angry Mouse on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:56:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Oh and (2.00 / 1)

Carville and Penn's 50%+1 strategies have helped oh so much


-- be excellent to each other
by kindthoughts on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:57:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh and (none / 0)

Carville actually managed to get a man into the White House.

Brazile has not.  She's got nothing but a long string of losses to her name.

She is worthless.  


by Angry Mouse on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:53:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

since florida is a solidly republican state... (2.00 / 1)

right now, this hardly matters.  even if those 25% stay with the democratic nominee, florida will still vote for mccain this year.  it doesn't matter who wins the democratic nomination, florida will remain a republican state (given the immense institutional advantages republicans have and the deep divisions -- that precede this electoral cycle -- among florida's democrats).  nothing will change that...


peace. love. equality. still waiting after 40 years...
by bored now on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:41:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Nothing will change that.... (2.00 / 2)

except maybe a senator from New York who appeals to all those NY transplants down in Florida.

Look at the results of the "meaningless" primary in Florida.  HRC got more votes than McCain.  


by Angry Mouse on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:58:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nothing will change that.... (2.00 / 1)

That's because turnout in the primaries in Florida was almost solely driven by a property tax amendment that skewed the demographics massively towards Clinton, and because the other Republicans impacted McCain's numbers.

It's not really due that strongly to any preference for Clinton so much as it's due to inherent bias in the primary process, combined with popular sentiment that, solely on the issue of the Presidential race, there was no reason to bother to vote.


No Way. No How. No McCain-Palin!
by Texas Gray Wolf on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:37:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nothing will change that.... (2.00 / 2)

You're right it has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that Democrats here in Florida came out in record numbers to vote for Hillary, Obama, and Edwards. And even though these record turnout numbers have been consistent in every contest, you're right, we only came out to vote in record numbers for a property tax amendment. Are you speaking from your experience as a Florida resident because I am?


by grlpatriot on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:04:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

need a strawman argument to make your point? (none / 0)

is intellectual dishonesty now contaminating hillary's campaign?

why, yes, i am a florida voter.  i worked on bill nelson's first campaign, and my first paid political job was for reubin askew.  i know, i know, you're new.  who's reubin askew, you're asking yourself.

the disparity here is that i actually listen to voters.  i don't doubt one iota that your opinion is the opinion you've shared.  i'm just not talking about my opinion, but those of florida democrats across the i-4 corridor (where only last year, sam brownback beat hillary in a head-to-head matchup poll).

in case you missed it, there is a whole florida outside of hillary's support areas...


peace. love. equality. still waiting after 40 years...
by bored now on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:30:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

intellectual dishonesty (none / 0)

Cite for the poll please. I don't find anything to  support your claim about Brownback. Yes, the I-4 corridor is more conservative as well as the Pan Handle, but Hillary has more support between Daytona and Tampa than you realize. Lot's of ladies love Hillary.

As of 3/20, Public Policy Polling: McCain leads Clinton 47-43 and leads Obama 51-39 in Florida. Obama will certainly lose Florida, but Hillary has a good chance to win FL.


by grlpatriot on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:44:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

have you ever talked to any democrats in the i-4.. (none / 0)

corridor?  because i have.  my ties to democratic politics in the state extend all the way back to 1972.  i think i have a credible basis for understanding how the state votes (especially since i've actually done campaigns in the state, including the 1988 and 2000 recounts).

i understand your need for wishful thinking.  it makes you feel better.  but it does nothing for florida democrats.  charlie crist is a popular republican governor with an impressive political machine that he's willing to roll out for the gop presidential candidate.  what has hillary got?  i mean, besides name recognition?  since you keep rolling out strawmen, you want to argue that alex sink has an equivalent political organization to drum up support for hillary?

i'm worried about building up the democratic party in florida and not one woman's campaign.  i'm sure that you're committed, but hillary can't win florida.  she won't spend the money to win it, nor send in the ground troops.  i'm not speculating on that.  and i won't gamble democratic presidential prospects on vain attempts to make people feel better...


peace. love. equality. still waiting after 40 years...
by bored now on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:59:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I've been around (none / 0)

Sure do know quite a few folks in the area. You sound so official maybe you've lost your "hope", but I too know a thing or two (no bragging needed). Hillary has the support and will fight for Florida. It's not a wish, it's firm.    


by grlpatriot on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:30:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

you mean the couple thousand ny transplants... (2.00 / 1)

who have come to florida since hillary's been a senator?

hillary got 49.8% of the democratic vote, while in the CONTESTED republican primary, mccain got 36.0% of the gop vote.  that you would think that hillary should be rewarded for her universal name recognition where no democrats competed shows how naive your thinking is here.

let's contrast: 1,924,346 republicans came out to vote.  1,734,456 democrats turned out.  republicans -- who demonstrated immense loyalty to their party's presidential nominee in florida -- turned out at 50%.  democrats, many of whom traditionally cross over to vote for the republican presidential candidate (since 1980) turned out at a lax 42%.  this disparity conforms with recent history in florida's partisan turnout.

hillary has no chance of winning florida against mccain...


peace. love. equality. still waiting after 40 years...
by bored now on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:47:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hillary got more votes in FL (2.00 / 1)

in a contested primary (ad buy, fundraising, press) with your guy on the ballot and the other candidates too.

Yet she still won more votes.

Bill Clinton is a very, very popular guy in FL and yes, that helps Hillsy.

The only way we can win FL is with Hillary Clinton--or a re-do.

With Obama on the ballot, his sinking popularity among veterans, seniors, Jewish, Cubans and on and on, PLUS DISENFRANCHISING FL?  Obama cannot win FL with his sunken numbers on all those groups (and Reverend Wright and so much more to come is part of the reason) but the clincher is that he is DISENFRANCHISING FL.

OBAMA CAN'T WIN FL--HILLARY CAN AND DID.


by chieflytrue on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:14:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

yeah, yeah, hillary has universal name... (none / 0)

recognition.  that doesn't change the fact that her support is generally contained to four counties and she does very poorly in the i-4 corridor.  the more she drags florida into the mud, the less popular she's becoming.

i have no idea on what basis you assert that hillary can win florida.  but if you are able to articulate some reasons for that assertion, maybe we can talk about it.  i've already had this conversation with her campaign.

again, i understand your need for wishful thinking.  i have too much experience in florida elections to engage in it.  i'm not trying to burst your bubble, merely end the ridiculous speculation that hillary should be our nominee because she can win florida.  she can't.  find another rationale.  florida democrats (at least in the i-4 corridor) are sick of being embarrassed by hillary's need to drudge up and allude to 2000 (which was the fault of the counties that support her)...


peace. love. equality. still waiting after 40 years...
by bored now on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:24:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Conceding Florida (2.00 / 2)

Florida has gone red 3 out of the last 4 presidential elections (92, 00, 04). But the last two were close. Unlike, Virginia which has gone red 4 out of 4 and wasn't close. Florida has 27 electoral votes (the 4th largest prize behind CA, TX, and NY). FL can make it into the Democratic winning column. PA - 21, OH - 20 are going to be in play in the general. I think it is irresponsible to concede Florida. Yes, the Gov. is popular here, but so is Hillary ("Clinton").  


by grlpatriot on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:37:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

hillary may be popular in your corner... (none / 0)

but polls of FLORIDA VOTERS strongly suggest her support is contained in four or five counties.  and her negatives in the last florida poll i saw were higher than the national average (50%, iirc).

the governor, otoh, is popular throughout the state.  and, unlike hillary, crist has a political organization that actually wins campaigns.

it's naive to think that florida is in play.  no democratic candidate will spend the money or send the staff required to win.  it's not the first 48% that's hard to obtain, it's the last 3%.  thank god all the campaigns know better...


peace. love. equality. still waiting after 40 years...
by bored now on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:34:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That's not just a distortion--it's a lie (2.00 / 1)

FL was 20 points ahead in Democrat to Republican voting before that dummy Dean's "punishment" of Floridians for the Republican legislature's calendrics.

If you'll take a closer look at FL, you'll see it's a state that Hillary Clinton is very competitive with in all demographics except African Americans while Obama is a surefire loss.

He's losing everybody over 30 except AA votes.

Hillary is doing great with seniors, Cubans, other Hispanics from multiple countries of origin, Jewish, vets, active duty military, and women.

Winning without FL has only happened twice.  

OBAMA--A GENERAL ELECTION NIGHTMARE.


by chieflytrue on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:20:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

from strawman to pure fiction -- you have quite... (none / 0)

the imagination!

1,924,346 floridians voted in the republican primary on february 29th, 1,734,456 voted in the democratic primary.  it was a RECORD turnout for democrats -- and it came AFTER the dnc made the decision to not seat florida's delegation to the convention.  the dnc's decision was hardly a secret; i can't say i know a single florida democrat who was unaware of it.

yet, despite the record turnout, florida's republicans still turned out at a higher percentage (50% to 42%) and higher quantities.

this repeats an established trend in recent florida elections.  in the 2006 primaries, republicans drew 985,986 voters in their gubernatorial primary, while democrats drew 857,814.  in the 2004 primaries, republicans drew 1,165,931 voters in their senatorial primary, while democrats drew 1,152,513.

would you like to guess who won the governor and senate elections?  i deal with reality.  wishful thinking doesn't change the reality.  florida is a republican state until democrats get better organized and start trying to win campaigns outside of south florida...


peace. love. equality. still waiting after 40 years...
by bored now on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:38:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

then they aren't democrats... (none / 0)

and good riddance.  people who try to blackmail america need to be sent to prison, not to the polls...


peace. love. equality. still waiting after 40 years...
by bored now on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:38:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm a Florida voter (2.00 / 2)

Thanks for posting this. This whole penalty business is bad news for Dems in the general. Ultimately, the DNC is penalizing voters; which really means disenfranchising core Democrat voters. I don't know about MI, but FL voters and the FL state party had nothing to do with the primary move. It was our Republican Gov and Republican controlled legislature that moved the primary date from March to January 29. Good luck, I hope you are selected as a delegate.

On a side note, Andre, you should post your photo here too. As I recall, your ethnicity has been challenged at MyDD, and at one point, I was called out as your sock. LOL! Tipped and Rec'ed.


by grlpatriot on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:47:00 AM EST

Yes! Let's not count NH either! (none / 0)


by rockemsockem on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:52:21 AM EST

Re: Yes! Let's not count NH either! (none / 0)

Well, since New Hampshire was a tie. OK. Just this once.


Your old role is rapidly aging. Please get out of the new one if you can't lend a hand, for the times they are a changing.
by Travis Stark on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 03:23:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: President Clinton: New Hampshire Broke The Ru (none / 0)

How many delegates did OBAMA gain in those three states?

I remember him winning all three, so therefore, his gain should be taken back.

Fair is fair.


Until recently I was selling drugs, and now I'm selling Obama T-shirts.
by switching sides on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:25:58 PM EST

Thank you (2.00 / 0)

Very interesting.  This is the very first I have ever heard this.


by bobbank on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:53:05 PM EST

Re: New Hampshire Broke (none / 0)

The State of New Hampshire publicly stated they were OK with Florida's new date because it still came after all the earlier states of IA, NH, SC and NV.  from Union Leader:

Gardner OK with Florida primary jump to Jan. 29
By BEVERLEY WANG
The Associated Press
Tuesday, May. 22, 2007

http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx? headline=Gardner+OK+with+Florida+primary +jump+to+Jan.+29&articleId=41c03c43- 176e-4a88-8254-ac8b25789b7e


by moevaughn on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:01:34 PM EST

What you are ignoring (none / 0)

is that the Michigan and Florida primaries were declared void before the primaries were held.  In light of the fact that we voted (or not) under that specific understanding, it wouldn't be at all legitimate to suddenly say "guess what - it counts after all."

I'd like to see a re-vote worked out (I'm in Florida and I'd like to have a say), but I have a condition of my own.  I absolutely object to the super-delegate from either state being seated.  They're the ones who screwed this up - it would be unconscionable to reward them for it.


by jrooth on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:08:04 PM EST

i have the same sentiment... (none / 0)

making florida count

it's mostly non-floridians that are driving this controversy.  i liked this comment: hillary is throwing us (florida) under the bus...


peace. love. equality. still waiting after 40 years...
by bored now on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:28:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What matters more? (2.00 / 3)

Rules or the right to vote?
Not so long ago the rules said only white men could vote. We changed the rules so that every citizen has the right to vote.
Are democrats really going to be the party that says  votes don't count if party leaders screw up?

I want my UHC!
by votermom on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:21:51 PM EST

we voted. we're done. leave us alone... (1.33 / 3)

i get that hillary needs florida.  but we don't need her.  even florida democrats are tired of her desperate play to embarrass the state...


peace. love. equality. still waiting after 40 years...
by bored now on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:48:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: we voted. we're done. leave us alone... (2.00 / 2)

You're the first FL voter I've heard say that.


I want my UHC!
by votermom on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:09:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: we voted. we're done. leave us alone... (none / 0)

i heard it all this weekend.  florida democrats are embarrassed to be dragged into this, especially because it's all a dead issue.  if hillary has to thread the needle to win, then make us the last step, not the first.  let's see her win by the margins she needs in order to make up ground before she pulls us into her circus...


peace. love. equality. still waiting after 40 years...
by bored now on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:36:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Apply original DNC penalty and be done with it (2.00 / 1)

At this point we're not going to get a revote. Clinton successfully ran out the clock and has been running a smear campaign against Obama claiming the opposite.

So we're left with two absolutely horrible elections or not seating delegates. Neither is a very Democratic solution -- we were all over the Republicans for disenfranchising a fraction of the people disenfranchised in the Florida primary, and that doesn't hold a candle to the ones disenfranchised in Michigan.

About the only solution left that both even slightly approximates the will of the voters and still gaves those states a place at the table is some modified version of the original DNC penalty.

Seat Florida at 50% voting power and with no SD's (removing SDs does not disenfranchise any voters, and the Democratic leadership is culpable in Florida's date shift, even though the Republicans are more to blame). Seat Michigan either at 50% voting power, with no SDs, and with Obama delegates representing the Uncommitted vote (those delegates cannot go to Clinton -- they clearly were intended to not go to her -- and no other candidate remains viable, thus thresholding applies), or seat Michigan 50/50 with SDs.

There's no other viable strategy left, really. Seating Florida with no penalty makes it open season on primary date changes, undercuts the DNC, and has the effect of severely disenfranchising AAs and young voters, which aren't groups anyone really needs to be disenfranchising in Florida if the concern here is either the voter's rights or how the party will do in the GE.

Seating Michigan with no penalty and no adjustment of the uncommitted delegates is simply absurd; 45% of the population, minimum, was disenfranchised, and in fact it's probably considerably higher than that.

In neither case should the "popular vote" numbers from either state be used for any purpose whatsoever, included in any count of popular votes, or considered any sort of tiebreaker, as neither election represents the popular vote of either state in any more than a highly vague and skewed fashion.


No Way. No How. No McCain-Palin!
by Texas Gray Wolf on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:33:59 PM EST

We will never vote for Obama (1.33 / 3)

"I don't believe you can pick and choose which states are penalized and which ones are not because that flies in the face of what I believe to be one of the Democratic Party's most cherished philosophies"

There must be equal protection issues involved. If the Obama campaign thinks Hillary supporters would support Obama if he weasels his way to the nomination like Bush in 2000 via Florida, then he is in for a shock.

There is a growing movement of Democrats who have sworn to never support him, mostly because of his racial politics, but also because he tries to game the system.


by JFK464 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:39:39 PM EST

and y'all will be happy republicans... (2.00 / 1)

especially given hillary's endorsement of mccain and how many values she shares with him.  since you aren't really democrats anyway, it's better for the party if we rebuild without you anyway...


peace. love. equality. still waiting after 40 years...
by bored now on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:52:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

sweet (2.00 / 1)

and then we have a group of Obama supporters who swear nto supoprt Hillary. You happy now?


-- be excellent to each other
by kindthoughts on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:01:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"weasels?" (none / 0)

Really?  No.  Really?

Sigh.


You can't stop the signal.

President "That One"

by Dracomicron on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 03:47:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: We will never vote for Obama (none / 0)

Because of his racial politics? Name a black candidate that you would support for president other then Colin Powell or Condi Rice. Obama is the least divisive candidate of the three left.


by Erik on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:00:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: President Clinton: New Hampshire Broke (2.00 / 2)

I thought Harold Ickes wrote the rules that stated MI and FL wouldn't count?

I just worry that all this negativity coming from the Hillary will hurt her chances.  Especially since they're pointing to things like this, when it was their own insiders who created it.

How can they back down from that now, effectively, and not look like back peddlers?


"More War Years! More War Years!" ~John McCain
by Tommy Flanagan on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:53:18 PM EST

he got (none / 0)

split personality it seems


-- be excellent to each other
by kindthoughts on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:05:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: he got (2.00 / 2)

LOL, you mean the one Obama has.  Claim he may be negative campaigning after promising he wouldn't, because it seems to be the method of our politics, but he won't resort to personal attacks.  LMAO  REALLY?   Tell us when you want to start.


by LindaSFNM on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:28:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

yeah (none / 0)

thats right he should just roll over and let Hillary pummel him with her personal attacks.


-- be excellent to each other
by kindthoughts on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:40:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: President Clinton: New Hampshire Broke (none / 0)

Oh, don't worry about HIllary, its the negative and false campaigning that surrounds OBAMA CAMPAIGN.  

Sheesh.


by LindaSFNM on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:27:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I like your style (none / 0)

blah...blah...empty accusation...

blah blah, more empty accusations....

and then demand I accept them as truth.


-- be excellent to each other
by kindthoughts on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:42:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Hampshire Broke The Rules Too (2.00 / 4)

Let's see, according to Obama's New Kind of Politics, Hillary and Bill are racists, Joe McCarthys, liars, and lacking in judgment and moral character.

Where is the substance in these attacks? Why is he not running on the merits of his massively superior qualifications and ideas?

[cricket cricket cricket]

Sounds pretty Old Kind of Politics to me.

I'm a true blue Dem, so I'll vote for Obama if he's the nominee. But I'll really have to hold my nose this time.


The world cannot survive four more years of Bush.
by madamab on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:47:43 PM EST

Re: New Hampshire Broke The Rules Too (2.00 / 1)

Why do I keep seeing this here.  Obama has NEVER called or implied that Hillary or Bill are racists and has said the exact opposite when asked.  

The lack of judgement meme has been used against Clinton regarding her vote for the AUMF.  Most people agree that her judgement was wrong on that vote.  Do you disagree?  

I have seen attacks from campaign surrogates on her moral character.  I don't always agree with them.  I've also seen nastier attacks coming from the Clinton side.  The worse being the implication that the republican candidate is better qualified than her democratic rival, since that burns the democratic party should she lose the nomination.


by shalca on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 03:37:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: President Clinton: New Hampshire Broke The Ru (2.00 / 2)

Earlier a commenter on Jerome's silly Gore post pointed out that it appears Clinton bloggers are on to the next stage of loss- bargaining. This is again more evidence of that.

The issue is that the DNC - independent - (heck, even favorable to Hillary with Ickes presence)set the rules and the method of enforcement, and they unanimously made the decisions for how to deal with the states and both candidates agreed to those rules on the front side. Now on the back side when it clearly favors her, she wants to renegotiate?

I'm sorry, not going to happen. That's no way to run an election. Yeah, it is unfortunate that the rules played out this way, but all candidates went into the process with the same information and sharing the same position. The burden is on those that want to change the rules in the middle of the process to gain agreement on all sides. It's not Obama's job to agree to a particular type of system that favors his opponent. Clinton rejected a re-vote in the form of caucuses or a totally open primary. So she can just keep whining until the superdelegates get tired of it.


Senator Obama will be formally nominated on August 28, 2008 - the 45th Anniversary of Dr. King's "I Have A Dream Speech."
by brimur on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 03:36:07 PM EST

Re: President Clinton: New Hampshire Broke The Ru (2.00 / 1)

Yes, I thought it was a bit unfair that the revote in Michigan would allow any democrat that voted for Hillary, to revote for Hillary, but would not allow and democrat that voted for a republican to revote as well.


by shalca on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 03:38:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: President Clinton: New Hampshire Broke The Ru (none / 0)

So, you think that the ones that voted for the Repubs should get TWO votes, while the ones that voted for Clinton should only get ONE vote?

That's what you are saying, since the votes for the Repubs have already been counted, long ago, while the ones for the Dems have not been at all. A re-vote would just be letting those whose votes haven't been counted yet be allowed to have their votes counted.

This is simple stuff, why can't those of you that voted for the Repub get that? YOU ALREADY VOTED, AND IT WAS COUNTED. It's not any body's fault but YOURS that you voted for a Repub.


by splashy on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:22:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: President Clinton: New Hampshire Broke The Ru (none / 0)

Nice try. The DNC and both candidates were saying something very different before. Beautiful effort to blame the voters!!


Senator Obama will be formally nominated on August 28, 2008 - the 45th Anniversary of Dr. King's "I Have A Dream Speech."
by brimur on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 09:34:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: President Clinton: Too (2.00 / 2)

LOL at "Democrats" who say of Bill Clinton "so what he won a couple presidential elections so what" as if Democrats win presidential elections all the time geesh!

Before Clinton Democrats hadn't won the presidency since 1976 and in 76 it should have been a slam dunk after Watergate but it wasn't Carter sqeaked by over Gerald Ford of all people.

Obamacrats don't get what it takes for a Democrat to win the presidency. They think the fact that we are only slightly behind McCain at the moment is a good thing yet they forget the Carter lead of +30, Dukakis +17 etc It takes a Democrat who fights like a Republican to win the presidency and that ain't Obama its Hillary :)


by rossinatl on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:12:28 PM EST

hillary has historically high negatives for a... (none / 0)

non-incumbent.  indeed, the incumbent who is closest to hillary's long-standing range of negatives is jimmy carter.  in 1979 and 1980.

there's a reason that republicans lined up to run against her...


peace. love. equality. still waiting after 40 years...
by bored now on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:37:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: President Clinton: Too (none / 0)

he's beating Hillary and the Clinton machine. That must say something to you.


by Erik on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:01:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: President Clinton: Too (none / 0)

Bill Clinton should thank Ross Perot every day of his life. He would have never won the 1992 election without Perot.


I am one of those latte liberals that Bill Clinton keeps bashing.
by ges69 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:57:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Bullshit argument, then and now (none / 0)

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/200 7/12/01/presidential-primary-calendar-se t/
December 1, 2007 Presidential primary calendar set Posted: 10:40 AM ET VIENNA, Virginia (CNN) - The presidential primary calendar was finalized Saturday, after months of uncertainty and just 33 days before the first votes are cast in Iowa. The Democratic National Committee approved requests by Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina to reschedule their nominating contests to earlier dates in January, while denying Michigan the right to hold its primary January 15. Michigan Democratic leaders vowed to move forward with the primary, even though none of its delegates will count towards the nominating convention and several Democratic contenders will not appear on the state ballot.
If the move was sanctioned by the Rules and Bylaws Committee (the group that is empowered by the DNC to set the calendar), then it doesn't violate 11.A. Ergo, your argument is fatally flawed. What SC, IA and NH did was sanctioned SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE of what FL and MI did. But, again, nice try. Bullshit argument, but nice try.
by Jay R on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:35:46 PM EST

Just try to win this thing, disenfranchising (2.00 / 2)

2 states.  

Obama's "man of principles" argument will never stand again.

A candidate who won't count votes.  George Bush counted Florida's votes-- he didn't want the re-count, but they were at least counted once.

The nightmare of being a Florididan, hard to believe these people here won't stand up for one person, one vote.

If Obama CAN win it like that, maybe he can win a General Election.

If he can't, where's your "he's so electable argument" going?  

I guess nobody who supports Obama believes he's electable after all.  

You are AFRAID he can't win if everybody votes, and it's starting to show.


by chieflytrue on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:26:43 PM EST

as a floridian, i'll repeat: LEAVE US ALONE! (none / 0)

we voted, we knew what we were voting for, and no one in florida is interested in another vote.  LEAVE US ALONE!!!

if hillary can't win without embarrassing the hell out of us, she doesn't deserve to win.  she started with all the advantages.  if voters reject her, for whatever reason, it's no excuse to drag us through the mud again...


peace. love. equality. still waiting after 40 years...
by bored now on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:41:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]


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: