MyDD :: WHA?!?! Obama, Not Clinton, Pressing For Florida Delegates Solution

WHA?!?! Obama, Not Clinton, Pressing For Florida Delegates Solution

by TruthMatters, Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:44:52 AM EST

still think she just wasn't playing politics to get her popular and delegate totals up?

http://blogs.tampabay.com/buzz/2008/03/o bama-reaches-o.html

The Hillary Clinton campaign has yet to express any interest in negotiating a solution to Florida's delegate mess, but a couple key Barack Obama staffers - delegate operations director Jeff Berman and political director Matt Nugen called state Democratic chairwoman Karen Thurman to talk about possible ways to give Florida a voice in the nomination.

"We're just looking for solutions," said Obama spokesman Bill Burton.

they want a solution if it involves a re-vote, just seating the delegates? apparently not enough anymore

http://blogs.tampabay.com/buzz/2008/03/t he-audacity-of.html

"When it comes to voting, Sen. Obama is turning the audacity of hope into the audacity of nope,'' Hillary Clinton campaign spokesman Phil Singer said on a campaign conference call.

Adviser Harold Ickes, who was among the DNC rules committee members to strip all of Florida's delegates away, continues to insist that Florida can hold a do-over primary, though almost no one in Florida agrees. The campaign brushed off any talk of negotiating a compromise to ensure Florida and Michigan get delegates seated.

"We don't see any need for that,'' Singer said of negotiating. "There's plenty of time to have re-dos."

wasn't the important thing getting these delegates seated?

I am not sure on the rules on quoting other posters from other diaries, but some of the more notable posters here have said the delegates must be seated.

Isn't that what we all wanted?

Tags: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Florida, Michigan, 2008 (all tags)

Permalink :: 66 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: WHA?!?! Obama, Not Clinton, Pressing For Flori (2.00 / 0)

let me clarify, I have said multiple times that they were BOTH playing politics.

but HRC supporters have said she was standing up for the fundamental rights of those voters

no, they both want the delegates seated, but only in a way way that helps their own campaign.

so lets stop attacking Obama when they are BOTH doing it. either call them both out on it or give them a pass.

me I give them a pass its politics and I would do the same if I was running their campaigns.

the delegates WILL be seated in Denver I don't doubt it, just AFTER we have a nominee

Obama said, as Bill beamed. "Thank you, President Clinton."

by TruthMatters on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:49:03 AM EST

There is only one rule, every one's vote counts (1.28 / 7)

as cast, not as the Obamorons want it. They want a vote split or they want a caucus and they don't want anything else. There is no compromise for an actual primary vote. If Obama wanted re-votes in Florida and Michigan, he'd be the one yelling for a re-vote.

The Obomorons on the DailyKos are now worried about the realization that, to quote the racist anti-Semite Jeremiah Wright, "The chickens are coming home to roost!" These arrogant pigs have attacked anything less than written Obama for months, Now, everyone else is realizing this is the kind of divisive and hateful campaign Obama has run. It is coming from Obama. He gave the green light for his supporters not to vote Hillary and he wanted a campaign that allowed race to be Obama's shields against any attacks, even his inexperience.

An Dailykos Obomoron came here yesterday to tell us that he will not vote for McCain so we shouldn't. However like many over at that blog, they will not vote for Hillary. These are the phony purists who don't see the shit Obama throws at them. They are blind. One asshole over there wrote a diary bashing Clinton and then said that if you vote for McCain, you are a member of a cult, you are a Republican. This is how these jerks want unity.

As far as the diarist, we are not imbeciles here. Go back to the Dailykos for this kind of ridiculous diary.

If Obama wanted a re-vote, there would be a re-vote

This blocking of the vote, injecting race and all the other things he has done, along with many of us not wanting Michele Obama as First Lady and Jeremiah Wright at State Dinners means this guy will go down to either Hillary or McCain. He is one sneaky SOB that too many of you DailyKos members don't see because you want him to be what he is not. You want him to be better than he is. If he wasn't so conniving and such a liar, I'd not only vote for him but actively support him.

Now the DailyKos wants unity. Go read their diaries, even the best of them, people who I've looked up to at one time, have written totally hateful diaries and comments and have their heads up their asses just like those purists who hated everything not Nader.

by cpa1a on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:18:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

if you have to start insulting me (2.00 / 1)

then most likely you have very little to address.
and you are replying me I don't use insulting terms to Hillary supporters I call them Hillary supporters, I would expect the same when you reply me. if you feel its ok to insult others thats fine its not fine with me.

Obama didn't vote to strip the delegates

that was Howard Ickes, you might know him he works for Hillary's Campaign.

Obama din't help write these rules, once again that was a member of Hillary's campain.

Obama did agree to follow the DNC ruling, (as did Hillary. and I doubt you or ANYONE else reading these words ever made a post calling for their right to vote to be preserved or bashing Ickes, Terry or even Clinton for their roles in this. No at the time it was ok because Clinton was for it.

now I am totally skipping you mentioning Dailykos or Wright because that has nothing to do with this, you wanna discuss those with me? fine create a new diary and we will do it there, I don't shy away from discussions

once again you want to discuss Dailykos or insult people thats fine make your own diary for it, don't do it here.

and now that I actually get to the end of your post you actually don't address anything here.

as one of the other Hillary supporters pointed out here Hillary for months was calling for the delegates to be seated, thats what is important.

the delegates will not be seated as is there will have to be a compromise, if you disagree thats fine, but the people that count, The Legislature of FL, the DNC, the Obama and Clinton campaigns all know there will have to be a compromise.

so you can play politics with this or if seating the delegates was really important then we'd actually begin discussing compromises

I am for a 50/50 split, or stripping FL of 1/2 their delegates then seating based on the votes

do you have any suggestions on a compromise or are you here to insult and posture on the issue?

Obama said, as Bill beamed. "Thank you, President Clinton."

by TruthMatters on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:30:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: if you have to start insulting me (none / 0)

Ahem, except you want to forget that BHO spent over a million in ads that covered Fla, and held at least one press conference in violation of that pledge. HRC didn't. And she STILL won there.

by zerosumgame on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:48:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: if you have to start insulting me (none / 0)

I seem to remember HRC having a press conference the day before the primary (with waving palm trees and everything).

Obama had a press conference outside of a fund-raiser, and was told afterwards he couldn't do it anymore. He didn't.

unapologetic Obama supporter

by dantes on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 03:18:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: if you have to start insulting me (none / 0)

well, no AFAIK HRC held none after the pledge was signed, BHO on the other hand did know beforehand that he was not supposed to and thought he could sneak it by. that does not bode well for his honesty...

by zerosumgame on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 04:09:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Please (none / 0)

That term is highly insulting. As a hardcore Clinton supporter, I reject your language. We friends like you, we don't need enemies.

If you're actually an Obama supporter trying to hurt Clinton, congratulations it's working. If you're a misguided Clinton supporter, please cease and desist.

by Trickster on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:32:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"Seating" the delegates (none / 0)

I notice you keep talking about getting the delegates "seated." Personally, I could give a damn less who gets tickets to the Convention.

But every voting Democrat in every state deserves to be represented by a delegates who is free to VOTE at the convention in representation of the votes cast.

Please please please for your candidate's sake in the general election should he get the nomination, DO NOT try to buy off Florida & Michigan with Convention tickets. That will just magnify the insult that is being done to them.

by Trickster on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:35:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WHA?!?! Obama, Not Clinton, (2.00 / 3)

Seating the delegates 50/50, as the Obama camp is floating, is not a solution it is a non-starter and they know it.

Try getting your Florida info from a reputable news source.

by americanincanada on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:04:09 AM EST

Re: WHA?!?! Obama, Not Clinton, (2.00 / 1)

And before you ask...I am from Florida and yes, The Times is liberal but they are also in Obama's pocket. They endorsed him awhile back and this is a blog of the paper's.

by americanincanada on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:04:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WHA?!?! Obama, Not Clinton, (none / 0)

its funny YOU bring this up

because you said yesterday, is the story true?

if so then the source doesn't matter.

so if its true that Obama is trying to find a way to negotiate a way to seat the delegates and Hilary isn't

then the source doesn't matter

(if you want me to link to where you said that let me know, it was when we were complaining about HRC using right wing sources)

Obama said, as Bill beamed. "Thank you, President Clinton."

by TruthMatters on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:09:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WHA?!?! Obama, Not Clinton, (2.00 / 1)

You don't have to link to what I said, I stand by it. I was talking about new sources and you know it.

An opinion blog attached to a newspaper is not a news source. If it was you would see a detailed explanation of what the Obama camp suggested along with how and why it is not an option.

by americanincanada on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:29:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WHA?!?! Obama, Not Clinton, (none / 0)

sigh that is really walking a slippery slope.

a right-wing source known for their smears are ok, as long as you think their conclusions are valid.

a blog is not ok, even if you think their conclusions are valid.

so does this mean then no one should quote MyDD diaries for anything?

this is an opinion blog after all.

Obama said, as Bill beamed. "Thank you, President Clinton."

by TruthMatters on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:32:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WHA?!?! Obama, Not Clinton, (none / 0)

I was not talking about the right wing sources conclusions and you know it. I was talking about direct quote they used. I asked you if the person had said it. if he had, then the sourse of THE QUOTE didn't matter. I can leave a conclusion out and make my own based on fact.

But what you linked to in your 'dairy' has no real facts. it is all conclusion. there are no quotes, no hard evidence...no nothing.

by americanincanada on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:21:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Oh noeses... (none / 0)

...you just had to go and shatter one of their myth-based talking points, didn't you?

:-D

"This election is not about ideology, it's about competence." -Michael Dukakis

by MBNYC on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:04:47 AM EST

Negotiating (2.00 / 1)

The Buzz

Barack Obama Campaign manager David Plouffe today repeated his suggestion that splitting the delegations evenly would be fair, but called that idea " a place to start from" in terms of working out a deal. "We're hoping that more urgent negotiations will take place. We certainly would like to be party to a settlement,'' Plouffe said. "When we wrap up this nomination, if (Florida and Michigan) are unsettled, we'll settle them. But I think it will be in everybody's interest to try and settle this over the next period of weeks so that there's some certainty about the delegations' participation in Denver."

A negotiated seating of the delegates based on anything other than a vote does not enfranchise the voters.

If Dems take away my primary vote, they don't deserve my general vote.

by Step Beyond on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:04:59 AM EST

Re: Negotiating (none / 0)

so you are saying there should be no compromise.

we have to seat them based on the vote and nothing else.

(otherwise anything else is NOT based on the votes its a compromise!)

Obama said, as Bill beamed. "Thank you, President Clinton."

by TruthMatters on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:11:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Negotiating (2.00 / 2)

I didn't say there should be no compromise. I said very clearly that basing any seating of the delegates off of anything other than a vote does not enfranchise the voters.

This isn't about whether or not those delegates are seated. Its about whether the votes of the people are reflected in how those delegates are seated.

A compromise that involves reducing the delegate number but still relies on a vote would still enfranchise voters. But a compromise that involves negotiating which percentage of delegates each candidate receives does not.

If Dems take away my primary vote, they don't deserve my general vote.

by Step Beyond on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:24:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Exactly correct! (none / 0)

by cpa1a on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:29:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Negotiating (2.00 / 0)

ok, so you have no problem with the number of delegates being reduced as long as the proportions follow the votes?

see thats fine and once again as someone stated

Bill Burton said the 50/50 was a STARTING place,

but the HRC campaign isn't even coming that far they are saying no, no negotiations or compromises only a re-vote

and my point is, when its all but certain that a re-vote is dead.

can't we admit that the HRC campaign is just playing politics here (which I freely admit with the BO campaign)

I am 100% against the assteration that hillary is standing up for some fundamental right.

she is playing politics, otherwise you can't justify why they didn't even suggest what you did. no 50/50 reduce delegates and seat based on votes, no instead they said there is no need to negotiate and my point is, can you her supporters not see that this is just playing politics?

Obama said, as Bill beamed. "Thank you, President Clinton."

by TruthMatters on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:38:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Negotiating (none / 0)

Bill Burton said the 50/50 was a STARTING place,

How can 50/50 be a starting point unless you are talking about changing how the delegates are distributed between the candidates and NOT a reduction of delegates. If you are talking about reducing the overall number of delegates than 50% or 25% becomes a starting point. If you are basing the distribution of the delegates between candidates based on a vote there is no starting point for that.

At what point did I ever say I was a Clinton supporter?

If Dems take away my primary vote, they don't deserve my general vote.

by Step Beyond on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:42:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Why have General Elections (2.00 / 1)

Let's just compromise. Maybe flig a coin!

Obama will pay so dearly for this alone if he gets the nomination. If I was a Floridian and he was preventing my vote from counting, I'd say "fuck him" and I'd vote for the the other guy to let everyone know never to do this again. You would think that is not necessary after what has happened in Florida in the last two elections.

Who wants a president who would prevent a vote? Not me!

by cpa1a on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:24:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WHA?!?! (2.00 / 2)

Well really, your title is a lie? Is this the only continuous pattern we can see from Obama?

I would be embarrassed to post such a blatant lie, but I guess, when it comes to Obama, that's all he has.

As if people haven't been hearing Hilary ask for Florida's delegates to be seated for many months.

New York Sen. Hillary Clinton thanked Florida voters for their support. "I could not come here to ask in person for your votes, but I am here to thank you for your votes today," Clinton told a cheering audience "

by LindaSFNM on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:08:04 AM EST

Re: WHA?!?! (none / 0)

exactly she has been calling for them to be seated for months, so now that the Obama campaign says ok lets negotiate on this.

they even said the 50/50 split isn't the end all be all its a place to start

wouldn't that be a good thing? isn't that a first step to getting them seated?

really then what everyone really means is

no compromise, we want them seated as is, otherwise you are disenfranchising them, there can be no compromise.

Obama said, as Bill beamed. "Thank you, President Clinton."

by TruthMatters on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:13:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WHA?!?! (none / 0)

I have to step in.

You have the audacity of hypocrisy to bring up Clinton's 'victory' rally in Florida. Everyone, including my mother, thought that was the largest expression of political bullshit that had hit our airwaves to date.

This was at a time when she realized that her plan to win it all was failing and she was posturing for a later move. She is a pol..plain and simple....but to hold a victory rally after that sham of an election-an election that she KNEW was bullshit...and to act like she was really interested in thanking the people of FL (who probably voted primarily for her last name and not her since they had not been given the chance to hear about HER policies - but certainly remembered fondly the policies of her husband)...and to think that every democrat (even her own supporters), the MSM, and the world did not see it for what it was....silly.

Hillary Clinton is 100% disingenuous when it comes to this issue. She knows it...you can see it in her face when she talks about it...she knows she is being a hypocrit.

She agreed to the will of the DNC and now has the audacity to say that Obama is the problem.

She should fire Harold Ickes and then admit she played the American people because she thought she would win...and then admit that she signed the pledge and now wants to change the rule. In the end, she needs to admit that she changed her mind...but that would be an admission...transparency...and we all know HRC is not very fond of truth.

Sorry...this is not really about the poster or the off-hand comments...but I am so friggin tired of HRC self-righteous bullshit about MI/FL.

Blame the DNC - or admit that you want to change the rules in the middle of the game...at least then her position on the issue will be clearly in contrast to BHO.

If she would just admit it - she would be in a position to call out Obama on it...but we know that will not happen.

We don't need a thinker. We need a doer: someone who'll act without considering the consequences. (H.J. Simpson)

by Newcomer on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:14:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WHA?!?! (none / 0)

"people of FL (who probably voted primarily for her last name and not her since they had not been given the chance to hear about HER policies" -

Are you saying that since the candidates didn't campaign in Florida that the Florida voters are not informed enough to be able to decide who to vote for? I've been voting in presidential elections for nearly 30 years, and there have been very few campaign stops in my state (MA), but somehow I've been able to inform myself about the candidates positions even if they never stepped foot in my state. Wow - modern technology - give it a try!

by AnnC on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:11:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WHA?!?! (none / 0)

In a way - that is what I am saying. Many voters do not pour over internet blogs, candidate sites, MSM articles on the internet. I think it is fantastic that you keep yourself informed by using the internet - but not everyone has access, time or energy to do it.

But fair enough - but I think you probably understand my point. Campaigning is essential. In state polls from 2007, HRC held 20 pt+ leads from East to West over BHO and others...his performance in the primaries since Iowa has revealed that those poll numbers were completely false. Campaigning does many things - in addition to the actual candidate being on the ground - the newspapers, local TV stations, etc. respond to campaign stops, have special 'election coverage' shows, feature candidates in Bio-specials or Op-Eds.

Campaigning IS politics. Obama does not have the name recognition. This is not his fault, nor is it HRCs. But to imply that the FL election was fair or balanced is wrong, I think.

To put it more simply. Do you think that if HRC and BHO had both campaigned in FL, the result would have been the same or different. If you think the same - then fine, we can agree to disagree - but if you think it would have been different then you should admit that FL was not a true reflection of our democratic process where candidates are given the right/priviledge to meet and greet voters, media, etc in each state.

We don't need a thinker. We need a doer: someone who'll act without considering the consequences. (H.J. Simpson)

by Newcomer on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:32:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Mr. or Ms. Newcomer (none / 0)

900,000 human beings went out of their way--on a working day, when they had problems of their own to tend to--to go the polling booth and cast a vote for Hillary Clinton that day. And you're actually suggesting she was out of line for dropping by their state to thank them?

?????

Oh, and by the way, what's this "rule" that you're claiming she wants to change?

by Trickster on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:43:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mr. or Ms. Newcomer (none / 0)

Nice rhetorical question. It doesnt work on me...but I suspect that you feel empowered.

The people of FL did nothing wrong and I think its great they showed support. Some even voted for Obama.

But you should admit that the results would have been different (surely, more voters) had the primary counted and the candidates campaigned.

As for 'rules', the expression was meant to highlight the fact that the DNC (not Obama, not Clinton, not Edwards...) decided by vote to strip delegates from FL. Now HRC wants to change that ruling (is ruling a better word for you?).

If she would admit that she could then go straight at BHO and draw a contrast.

What she did that evening, what she and her surrogates (including the former POTUS which is shameful) are doing/saying now is disingenuous.

You can reply all day long - but for me this is the most dishonest, disingenuous example of politics that I have witnessed this primary. It is so completely transparent that MyDD diarists feel the need to recap HRCs talking points 5 times a day. thou doth protest a bit too much.

Anyway, we can agree to disagree...but dont throw weak rhetoric at me in the hopes of proving a point.

We don't need a thinker. We need a doer: someone who'll act without considering the consequences. (H.J. Simpson)

by Newcomer on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 03:00:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Rhetoric (none / 0)

900,000 people voted for her. Let's assume that each person spent 20 minutes voting. That's a very conservative assumption--including driving, parking, waiting in line, thinking, etc., I think it's safe to say the average is > 20 minutes. But we'll say 20 minutes.

That makes 300,000 hours.

If you work from 9 to 5, 5 days a week, all year, and take 2 weeks vacation, that's 2000 hours. So the time Floridians spent voting for her is the equivalent of 150 people working for her for an entire year for no pay. Or you could make it 3 people spending their entire adult lives, from 20 to 70, working for her for no pay.

And it's evil for her even to show up and say "thank you." Geez, what a generous interpretation of her motives you're making.

by Trickster on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 09:18:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Rhetoric (none / 0)

Fair enough...but you obviously are missing or choosing to ignore my point.

It is completely ridiculous for her to claim victory in FL after a sham election.

She did not go down there and say thanks...she went down with Jessica Yelin and the rest of the MSM in tow to say THANK YOU FLORIDA! with confetti and the works. She knew what she was doing.

You are correct - but for the wrong reasons - if you think Hillary was in FL to 'thank' the voters. Talk about koolaid!

But you know what is funny...HRC did not thank the voters of Vermont, or Mississippi, or Wisconsin, or others...in any public way...and why not? I mean they also spent 20 minutes voting. They also work from 9 to 5, 5 days a week, all year, and take 2 weeks vacation. So the time Vermontians, Wisconsintes, Mississippians, etc.spent voting for her is the equivalent of 150 people working for her for an entire year for no pay. Or you could make it 3 people spending their entire adult lives, from 20 to 70, working for her for no pay.

Why did she not feel the need to thank them?
Oh...b/c she lost.

Sorry - I have enjoyed this - but you will not sway me with rhetoric or statistics. She is politician..and a damn good one!

We don't need a thinker. We need a doer: someone who'll act without considering the consequences. (H.J. Simpson)

by Newcomer on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:41:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WHA?!?! Obama, Not Clinton, Pressing For Flori (2.00 / 1)

American's know what democracy is and what democracy isn't.

Obama's decision to be worse on democracy than Bush has rendered him unelectable.

by DTaylor on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:10:37 AM EST

The only possible solutions (2.00 / 2)

for Florida and Michigan is to either let them re-vote, or seat them as they are. If those were the choices, Obama would probably be all for a re-vote. The Obama camp wants them to be split 50-50, which is basically the same as not seating them at all, which appears to be Obama's second choice.

by georgiapeach on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:10:40 AM EST

Re: The only possible solutions (none / 0)

Seating the delegates 50/50 does not reflect the way the resluts would have come out if there was a fair election. Neither does seating the delegates as they were selected in the unofficial election reflect such popular will however. If 50/50 is a non-starter than seating the delegates as is, should be for the same reasons.

by DreamsOfABlueNation on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:46:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I agree with that. (none / 0)

Which is why I think both candidates should be pushing for a re-vote. But failing that, I think that seating them as is would be more fair than a 50-50 split, which is pretty much the same as not counting them at all.

by georgiapeach on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:41:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I agree with that. (none / 0)

I agree the best solution is a revote with fair rules allowing everyone to vote -- including those who voted in the Republican primary b/c they thought the Dem vote would not count.

"I think that seating them as is would be more fair than a 50-50 split, which is pretty much the same as not counting them at all."

By not counting them at all, I assume you mean not counting will of the voters. Don't we already agree that the results of the tainted contests do not give us a realistic picture of what the will of the voters would have been if a regular election had been held? If that's the case than why is the result of that vote any better approximation of popular will than a split that approximates such a will at 50/50?

by DreamsOfABlueNation on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:50:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I think that the only solution (none / 0)

that is completely fair to both candidates is a re-vote. The reason that I say that the only options should be either a re-vote or seat them as is, is that both candidates would then have an incentive to encourage and support a re-vote. I can understand why it is not fair to Obama to seat them as is. I can also understand why it is not fair to HRC to seat them in a 50-50 split. But most of all, I can understand why it is not fair to the rank and file Democrats in those two states to deny them a voice in a race this close. I also think that it is not fair to the people who have worked so hard for both of these candidates for the party bigwigs who created this situation to not find a way to resolve it, because I think we will suffer the consequences in Nov., no matter who the nominee is.

by georgiapeach on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:58:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

There is no doubt (2.00 / 1)

Obama will continue to float "Compromises" and that those "compromises" will be spun by Obama surrogates as an attempt to seat the FL delegation. And that Clinton is blocking those attempts.

That's an easy play for Obama.

But it also adds insult to injury for anyone not already converted.

by Edgar08 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:23:58 AM EST

Too Cute By A Half (1.00 / 2)

Is why he will lose the election. The same way he is saying he would compromise, he praised Reagan and the idea thinking Republicans to screw Hillary by tearing apart what Bill did. For those who don't know it, Bill did some GREAT things to stop Obama's hero and his thinking party.

He is a sneaky conniving and lying SOB. Now he is minimizing Jeremiah Wright's sermons and just about saying they are OK because he made at least 3 speeches a week for three years and only a few were .... my words...disgusting, divisive and sitting there ready to incite god knows what. Maybe Wright wants to re-live the riots in Washington DC in the mid-sixties. How can Obama not put down and destroy pig like this. There was a time when I liked that Obama didn't throw Wright under the bus but the more I heard of him the more I don't want that guy in the White House. Well, wee are not in the mid sixties anymore and we've come a very long way without Barack Obama and we will do fine without him.

I am a progressive Democrat who wouldn't exactly jump off a bridge for Hillary but I think Obama and his Rube Goldberg adventure to the tiniest of delegate leads needs to be stopped before McCain is the one that does it.

by cpa1a on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:43:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Your comment was troll rated. (none / 0)

Troll rated for use of the term SOB about a democrat.

Also note, none of the Clinton supporters thought your comment was worthy of mojo.

Try to be mature.

Student Guy=JoeMentum. No really Student Guy=JoeMentum, after all JoeMentum was an embarrassment so is Student Guy. This sig is FAIL!!

by Student Guy on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:04:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Too Cute By A Half (none / 0)

"I am a progressive Democrat"

I am calling bullshit on that.

We don't need a thinker. We need a doer: someone who'll act without considering the consequences. (H.J. Simpson)

by Newcomer on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:17:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: There is no doubt (none / 0)

so I don't get it. there should be no calls for a compromise? all interested parties shouldn't sit down and work this out?

sigh.. ok

Obama said, as Bill beamed. "Thank you, President Clinton."

by TruthMatters on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:47:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: There is no doubt (2.00 / 1)

Yeah. Right.

Here's a solution. Certify the vote we have.

by Edgar08 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:03:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: There is no doubt (none / 0)

the votes being seated as is won't work

the DNC won't do it because it sends a message violate our rules and we wont do anything about it.

the DNC has an interest in people believing that they will act when they say they will act and the ywill follow through.

so no it won't happen this way and it doesn't help if people won't face the political reality of the situation.

Obama said, as Bill beamed. "Thank you, President Clinton."

by TruthMatters on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:09:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Sure it will (none / 0)

The DNC can figure out a different punishment.

by Edgar08 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:19:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: There is no doubt (none / 0)

maybe the DNC is a bit self-important? my theory is that Dean is living vicariously through Obama, this time he will will "win" if Obama wins.

Only problem is, Obama won't win.

Dean ran a lousy campaign in 2004. What does he know about winning elections?

Neither Dean nor the DNC "rules:" are as important as the voters of those states, both in primary votes and in Electoral Votes.

We need to quit picking over rules and just win in November. This is why Republicans are better politicians. They don't care about fairness, and "rules" they just focus on winning. And then they win.

It doesn't matter that we are right on many issues, or that we are a more "inclusive" more "fair" party, if we lose, we won't be in a position to make the decisions.

by WolfmanJack on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:18:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: There is no doubt (none / 0)

Certify the vote that we were told wouldn't count? If you're trying to convince people outside of the Clinton camp, there are way too many counter arguments to that one.

Beat McCain!

by thezzyzx on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:54:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

the only thing obama's put on the table.. (2.00 / 2)

...is a 50-50 split, which is functionally equivalent to the current situation of ignoring the will of the florida voters, who supported hillary over obama, 50 to 33 percent.

with obama's "compromise", the delegate count difference remains the same as if florida didn't count. all the delegates get to go to the convention, get drunk, and wear funny hats, and the florida voters are out in the cold. their votes don't count.

and now the obama camp and this diarist are attempting to make hillary's campaign appear unreasonable by rejecting this farce of a "solution". riiight.

i still have my sign from 2000. good thing i saved it.

by campskunk on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:26:45 AM EST

Re: the only thing obama's put on the table.. (2.00 / 2)

Does anybody think by calling it a 50/50 split, the voters of Florida will be stupid enough to think that means their votes are being counted? If you don't want to count the votes of FL (which had an actual primary with 1.7 million voters turning up to choose from all candidates on the ballot), then at least have the balls to just say you don't want to seat the delegates, and let the EVs fall where they may.

by AnnC on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:37:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WHA?!?! Obama, Not Clinton, (2.00 / 1)

Compromises that allocate delegates in a wa no voter intended is stealing votes and spitting in the voters faces. there are only two choices and Obama knows it, us Florida voters know it too.

Obama fanatics can spin this any way you like but if you look and listen to what real voters in Florida and Michigan are saying, instead of reading a reporter's opinion on a blog, you might learn something.

by americanincanada on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:28:42 AM EST

Re: WHA?!?! Obama, Not Clinton, Pressing For Flori (none / 0)

oh wow

as one of her supporters pointed out

Barack Obama Campaign manager David Plouffe today repeated his suggestion that splitting the delegations evenly would be fair, but called that idea " a place to start from" in terms of working out a deal.

they know it wont be 50/50 its a place to start!

why cant anyone here have an honest discussion about this why do you guys have to spin everything.

my only point here is that they are BOTH playing politics, but you all disagree and continue to spin everything.

the point is she didnt even suggest just reducing the delegates then seating them BASED ON THE VOTES

no Singer said they don't want to negotiate this, they only want a re-vote. when FL dems have said. it wont happen, we need to negotiate

She is playing politics and you guys are either just flat out lying or you can't see it

Obama said, as Bill beamed. "Thank you, President Clinton."

by TruthMatters on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:41:21 AM EST

No Spin: No Ideas (2.00 / 1)

Just Vote.

There is no substitute for an actual vote.

It is bad enough he won states with caucuses that disenfranchise anyone older and anyone with a life.

One Dkos diarist had the nerve to complain about Clinton's Nevada court action to prevent having the caucuses in the casinos. How fucking blind can you be not to see how that overwhelmingly favors Obama since the Casino union backed him and their members could vote on breaks, have no parking problems, and have no baby sitting problems. And what about union officials intimidating voters to vote for Obama. It looked like a zoo there if you saw it and still Hillary won. It would have been a landslide for Hillary if it was a regular voting primary.

This is just plain stupid and I lost an incredible amount of respect for that diarist for being oblivious to this stupid caucus system.

by cpa1a on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:04:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No Spin: No Ideas (none / 0)

once again a vote is out, Florida has said no. they aren't doing it

we need a compromise. and simply going just vote wont help, it leaves everyone just waiting for people who say that to accept reality so we can find a solution.

there won't be a revote so how ELSE can we get those delegates seated?

Obama said, as Bill beamed. "Thank you, President Clinton."

by TruthMatters on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:08:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WHA?!?! Obama, Not Clinton, Pressing For Flori (none / 0)

Do not use me as a source and call me "one of her supporters" unless you can point to any post of mine where I say that I am a Clinton supporter. Otherwise you are "flat out lying" or making things up.

You want an honest discussion, start by being honest.

If Dems take away my primary vote, they don't deserve my general vote.

by Step Beyond on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:18:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WHA?!?! Obama, Not Clinton (2.00 / 2)

Obama is looking for a way to seat delegates that ignores the will of the people. That is not acceptable.

99% perspiration

by DaveOinSF on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:02:27 PM EST

A Florida question (2.00 / 1)

I have a question about Florida that I have yet to see answered. Remember when Obama ran a "national ad," and just could not help that it showed in Florida, right before the Florida primary? Has he run any national advertisements since then? If not, should the Party sanction him for so obviously breaking his "Pledge"?

by dhonig on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:20:07 PM EST

Re: A Florida question (none / 0)

This was going to be my question. He ran an ad, and if I'm not mistaken was also down there around the same time on a talk show or something giving an "interview?" (campaigning IMHO) but still he LOST! Seat the delegates with the election outcomes as they are-then yes find some other viable solution to punish the state (Republican) legislature. A hefty fine might be in order since the DNC is in need of money...
Rules or not-Christ can't ya see ya played right into the Republicans hands-Yo Dean D*%&**&s wake up!
Yes I would be saying the same thing if Obama had won the election down there.
Take this shit out on the Republicans not on the voters themselves. Geez this should really be a "no brainer" In fact if the voters down there have their way-the Republicans will probably be voted out of office. Hmm Republicans and the DNC (Dean)- well "Stupid is as Stupid does" I guess.

Go Florida-I don't care who you voted for I'm proud to know that 1.7 million of ya got out there and participated-that's friggin' awesome!

Namaste.

by artsykr on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:47:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Florida question (none / 0)

The party didn't forbid ads, the pledge from the 4 early states did. So it would be up to them as to what violates their pledge or not. South Carolina Dem leader approved the ad running in Florida and they were the only of the 4 states to still hadn't had their primary at that time. And the Dem leader of one of the other states had previously stated that they wouldn't be judging the candidates action but leaving that to their voters to decide.

I don't think you can judge as to whether other national ads ran because there is no other primary date similar to Super Tuesday. I suppose you could look at after Florida but before Super Tuesday but after Super Tuesday would be irrelevant imho.

If Dems take away my primary vote, they don't deserve my general vote.

by Step Beyond on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:13:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The pledge was between the candidates (none / 0)

The party leader of South Carolina was not a party to that agreement and does not have the right to tell one of the parties to the agreement that he can go ahead and break it despite the fact that the other candidates continued to honor it.

The pledge banned "electronic advertising that reaches a significant percentage of the voters in the aforementioned state." According to Nielsen, 92% of all Florida TV households receive CNN, where Obama ran his ads. This was there are 6.6 million TV households in Florida that receive CNN through either local cable systems or satellite dishes. This represents 92 percent of all Florida TV households.

This was the first national ad buy by any Democratic candidate, and gee it must've just been a coincidence that it started 10 days before the FL primary and ran right through the FL primary.

by Trickster on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:56:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No it wasn't. (none / 0)

You're mistaken.

Link to letter which accompanied pledge. At the bottom of the page is a link to the pledge as well.

The pledge was created by the Dem leaders of the 4 early states. It was a pledge to them NOT to the other candidates.

The Obama campaign reasoned that since only South Carolina had their primary left they only needed permission from the Dem leader of South Carolina. Which made me wonder why no one ever made the point after South Carolina, by that same reasoning, all the candidates could have freely campaigned in Florida. But that is a discussion for a different diary.

Oh and when the FDP asked for an exemption for the state convention, they asked the 4 Dem party leaders of those states. Not the candidates. Not the DNC. Here's their response.

If Dems take away my primary vote, they don't deserve my general vote.

by Step Beyond on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:17:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm not mistaken (none / 0)

If Bill and Sally ask you and I to come to an agreement on something, and then you and I come to an agreement, the agreement is still between me and you alone, not between me and you and Bill and Sally.

Put it a little more legalistically: every contract must have "consideration" or else it is void, meaning that each contracting party must give something up. Here, each candidate gave something up, his or her promise not to campaign in the 4 states covered by the pledge. The states gave up nothing whatsoever. They just receive the benefits of the agreement between the parties. In contract terms, they're called a "third-party beneficiary."

A third-party beneficiary most assuredly cannot unilaterally release one of the parties to an agreement from its obligations under the agreement. The third-party beneficiary MAY disclaim any duty that the parties owe to the third-party beneficiary, but in this case the parties to the agreement owed duties to each other, and the third-party beneficiary is powerless to affect such duties.

by Trickster on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:34:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm not mistaken (none / 0)

But the candidates were not signing an agreement with each other. This was not some legally binding contract. Clinton can't sue Obama if she thinks he broke the pledge anymore than Obama could sue Clinton if she broke the pledge.

The pledge was written by those Dem leaders. It was enforced by those Dem leaders. Exceptions were made by those Dem leaders. When people asked questions about the pledge it was to those Dem leaders.

At no point was Obama promising Clinton he wouldn't campaign in Florida and Michigan. He was promising those Dem leaders. Which is why after his impromptu press conference in Florida people asked THOSE DEM LEADERS if he violated the pledge. They didn't ask Clinton.

This wasn't a contract. It was just a pledge. If I pledge to you that I won't ever vote against you and someone else pledges to you they also won't vote against you it doesn't mean that the pledge is between me and them. We just happen to have the same pledge to you. If I break my pledge to you then that is between me and you. I didn't promise that other person anything.

If Dems take away my primary vote, they don't deserve my general vote.

by Step Beyond on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:43:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Actually (none / 0)

It IS a legally binding contract. It contains bilateral promises, consideration, and agreement. Any of the candidates could enforce it in court.

And really, the reason that the legalities are the way that they are is because fairness dictates the exact same result. These candidates gave up something real and concrete by entering into this pledge (while the states, as I've pointed out, gave up nothing). It's just not fair for one of the persons to bail out of the agreement without the consent of the other people who have agreed with him to give up something. They're left continuing to make the sacrifice they had all agreed together to make, while he is out skating free because somebody who never gave up anything anyway said he could.

I'll even put it a third way: read the pledge. It simply does not say that states can release candidates from their pledges.

And a 4th way: even if the states could release the candidates from their pledges, do you think it's fair that only one candidate be released, as opposed to everybody being released at once?

I can only imagine how the media would've treated the argument under Clinton Rules had Clinton made it. But no, it's an Obama argument, which means that it's taken seriously and its numerous flaws may not be pointed out.

by Trickster on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:51:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

My last post on this (none / 0)

What does the pledge state happens when one breaks the pledge? Nothing.

You are the only person I've ever seen arguing that the pledge is between the candidates. I've never seen that argument in any newspaper or on a blog. I've never seen anyone else deny that the pledge was to the 4 early states. Heck they even call it the 4 state pledge.

No it doesn't say the states can release them. But clearly the FDP and the Obama campaign both thought they could. And clearly when it was thought that Obama had violated the pledge people turned to those states to see if it counted as a violation.

Fair doesn't matter. Fair doesn't determine whether the pledge was to the 4 states which it clearly was to everyone but you.

This is a waste of my time. You clearly are set with your opinion even though no one shares it and there is nothing that supports it. So feel free, not that you need my blessing, to think the pledge was between the candidates. I know it was a pledge between each candidate and the 4 early state Dem leaders.

If Dems take away my primary vote, they don't deserve my general vote.

by Step Beyond on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 03:00:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Nothing that supports it (none / 0)

Right.

I'm an experienced attorney. I know a binding contract when I see one. And I've quoted you chapter and verse on the contract law. Everything I've said is right down the middle of the law, not controversial at all.

Ask any knowledgeable attorney who is bound by the pledge, and who can release the pledgees from their promises. You will get the same answer every time.

by Trickster on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 03:23:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Clinton always, now Obama (none / 0)

The facts are that Hillary has been working to get Florida seated since our primary on Jan. 29 when she came here to our victory rally. Of course she wants to seat the delegates as is, it benefits her. Of course Obama doesn't, it benefits him. To say that Obama is the one trying to get FL and MI seated is not truthful. The states themselves were not able to come up with a solution with the candidates. So, now the candidates will have to come up with something.

Are they both now working to come up with something that gives them the advantage over the other and still not disenfranchise the voters -- of course they are.

by grlpatriot on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:38:31 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.