MyDD :: Oops! It's NOT Obama, Stupid!

Oops! It's NOT Obama, Stupid!

by psychodrew, Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 07:49:37 PM EST

Last week, the Scotsman published an article claiming that Al Gore and Jimmy Carter were planning a joint endorsement of Barack Obama to bring about an early end to the primaries:

DEMOCRAT grandees Jimmy Carter and Al Gore are being lined-up to deliver the coup de grâce to Hillary Clinton and end her campaign to become president.
Falling poll numbers and a string of high-profile blunders have convinced party elders that she must now bow out of the primary race.

Former president Carter and former vice-president Gore have already held high-level discussions about delivering the message that she must stand down for the good of the Democrats.

"They're in discussions," a source close to Carter told Scotland on Sunday. "Carter has been talking to Gore. They will act, possibly together, or in sequence."

The problem is that it isn't true. After its publication on April 13, the story was updated on April 14 to read (at the bottom, of course):

The content of this story is disputed by former vice president Al Gore.

And today, Taylor Marsh is reporting that she received an email from the former vice-president's communication director disputing the story:

Oh, and speaking of Florida, you know that rumor about Al Gore allegedly pairing with Jimmy Carter to resolve the primary fight? Pure rubbish. I heard it from Gore's communication's director Kalee D. Kreider today via email. Krider said they tried to get a retraction, but the Scotland wouldn't do it. Repeat after me: Gore is not involved in the primary. Period. Frankly, I never believed the report; Gore's much too smart to get involved in this mess.

On Sunday's This Week With George Stephanopoulos, former President Jimmy Carter re-stated his intention not to officially endorse any candidate until the convention:

The only thing I know is that, I have not made an endorsement, and don't intend to, until the time of the convention.

If there is going to be an early end to the primaries, the voters will have to deliver the knockout blow. There won't be any backroom deals to push Hillary out of this race and her voters won't stand for it if anybody attempts one.

For now, Hillary is in it, and she's in it to win. She is not giving up, she is not giving in, and neither are her supporters!

Tags: Al Gore, Jimmy Carter, Barack Obama, Taylor Marsh, Scotsman (all tags)

Permalink :: 98 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: Oops! It's NOT Obama, Stupid! (2.00 / 3)

I knew that it was true since the story came out. Gore said very firmly last time that he will not involve until the race gets to the convention.

by JoeySky18 on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 08:01:40 PM EST

Re: Oops! It's NOT Obama, Stupid! (2.00 / 5)

Unfortunately, that didn't keep somebody from feeding this false story to the Scotsman. Gee, I wonder who would benefit from a story like this.

Linfar's co-blogger opposing John McCain

by psychodrew on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 08:05:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oops! It's NOT Obama, Stupid! (2.00 / 2)

Somebody scared to let it run its course, apparently.

by Scotch on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 08:18:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oops! It's NOT Obama, Stupid! (1.50 / 2)

Uhh, so the Obama campaign fed the Scotsman this story. The ones who broke the Samantha Powers story.

You guys are paranoid. No wonder your candidate is losing.

Hooray for John McCain!

by ragekage on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:03:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oops! It's NOT Obama, Stupid! (2.00 / 1)

Why does the Scotsman running the Powers story preclude a representative of the Obama campaign from feeding the paper a false story? Are you saying that the Obama campaign won't talk to newspapers who criticize him?

Linfar's co-blogger opposing John McCain

by psychodrew on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:19:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oops! It's NOT Obama, Stupid! (2.00 / 1)

They broke the Powers story because of "journalistic integrity"; why would they then shill for Obama?

Hooray for John McCain!

by ragekage on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:28:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oops! It's NOT Obama, Stupid! (2.00 / 1)

I'm not saying they shilled. SOMEBODY gave them false information. And somebody confirmed that false information. What I am saying is that the story benefited the Obama campaign and there is nothing that would have precluded some Obama supporters or some people close to the campaign from manufacturing that story.

Linfar's co-blogger opposing John McCain

by psychodrew on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:34:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oops! It's NOT Obama, Stupid! (2.00 / 2)

Why would it benefit the Obama campaign if it was false, and they would have to think Gore would address it? That's some fine detective work there, Lou.

Hooray for John McCain!

by ragekage on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:49:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oops! It's NOT Obama, Stupid! (2.00 / 1)

It was beneficial the same reason that Leahy and Kerry and Dodd calling for Hillary to drop out was beneficial. Because it focused attention on the fact that she faces long odds. And took attention away from Obama's problems. Even if the story was debunked later.

Linfar's co-blogger opposing John McCain

by psychodrew on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:00:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oops! It's NOT Obama, Stupid! (2.00 / 1)

You just told me not every problem Obama had was caused by Clinton; so, why do all these things seem to be a Machiavellian event orchestrated by Obama? Kinda a double-standard you got there.

Hooray for John McCain!

by ragekage on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:07:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oops! It's NOT Obama, Stupid! (none / 0)

I never said that he was the one who planted that story I said it was possible his supporters did it. I'm not big on conspiracy theories. Hillary has made plenty of mistakes this campaign season of her own doing.

Linfar's co-blogger opposing John McCain

by psychodrew on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 12:51:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oops! It's NOT Obama, Stupid! (2.00 / 1)

How does this benefit the Obama campaign...? Seriously how...?

Absolutely amazing that you can now spin "false story, easily debunked by asking either of the principles benefits Obama"

THAT is what would preclude anyone close to the Obama campaign from manufacturing the story....

Geez, is everything a conspiracy now?

Like the nominee, don't like the nominee... Our nominee is still better than John McCain...

by JenKinFLA on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:51:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oops! It's NOT Obama, Stupid! (none / 0)

As I stated upthread:

It was beneficial the same reason that Leahy and Kerry and Dodd calling for Hillary to drop out was beneficial. Because it focused attention on the fact that she faces long odds. And took attention away from Obama's problems. Even if the story was debunked later.

Linfar's co-blogger opposing John McCain

by psychodrew on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:04:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ocallign people paranoid (none / 0)

is really out of line when they are simply speculating the same as you do.

For Obama it now becomes: Faith, hope and CHANGE! And the greatest of these is Change!

by TeresaInPa on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:00:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

It's not over yet! (2.00 / 6)

Not until all the voters get cast their ballot.

Linfar's co-blogger opposing John McCain

by psychodrew on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 08:03:00 PM EST

And (2.00 / 5)

And those who have cast one have it counted.

99% perspiration

by DaveOinSF on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 08:14:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And (2.00 / 1)

If Clinton dropped out today, why couldn't everyone vote?

Hooray for John McCain!

by ragekage on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:03:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

About as meaningful (2.00 / 1)

That would be about as meaningful as an election in Saddam's Iraq (or today's Zimbabwe...).

99% perspiration

by DaveOinSF on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:07:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: About as meaningful (2.00 / 1)

So, if Obama was trailing, you'd demand every state vote, too. No, don't answer that- I don't want to have to make you lie.

So, in 1996, did you decry the fact President Clinton suggested Lyndon LaRouche drop out early?

Hooray for John McCain!

by ragekage on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:11:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: About as meaningful (2.00 / 3)

I would be calling for all the votes to be counted because I know that an illegitimate victory for either candidate does not serve the party's interests. As I wrote a few weeks, if the situation were reversed, the media would be pounding Hillary for not pushing for re-votes in MI & FL.

And Lyndon LaRouche had no chance in 1996. Hillary still has a legitimate path to the nomination.

Linfar's co-blogger opposing John McCain

by psychodrew on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:26:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: About as meaningful (2.00 / 1)

What, wait and try to find something to destroy Obama's credibility, or try to destroy it herself, and then claim he's unelectable so the remainder of the superdelegates will endorse her over him?

Well, you're right. I suppose it's a "legitimate" path.

Hooray for John McCain!

by ragekage on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:27:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: About as meaningful (2.00 / 2)

If Hillary has the most popular votes, which is still a possibility, then polls indicate that Democrats want the supers to give the nomination to her.

That is legitimate.

Obama caused his own problems here. He is the one who got caught belittling blue-collar voters behind their backs. Hillary didn't make him do that. He did that himself. She also didn't send his advisor to tell the Canadian gov't that Obama was blowing smoke up the voters asses on NAFTA. His mistakes are his own doing.

Linfar's co-blogger opposing John McCain

by psychodrew on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:38:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: About as meaningful (2.00 / 1)

I guess, however unlikely, Clinton may be able to exceed Obama in the popular vote, but that's not the metric we counting towards a win, are we? Besides, it only reinforces my original point that Senator Clinton's trying to destroy Senator Obama so she can win the nomination, by whatever metric.

And it makes your desperation all the more evident you're "clinging" to this bitter-thing. You know full well what Obama meant versus what he said; you're willing to take that misinterpretation for all it's worth because it's the only thing you have left going for you. And thank god Alan Goolsbee isn't running for President. Hell, I'd hate to think someone would surround themselves with advisors who told them what they wanted to hear instead of different opinions; that'd be like something George Bush would do.

Thank God none of the Democratic candidates could be described thusly- honoring loyalty more than experience.

Hooray for John McCain!

by ragekage on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:48:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: About as meaningful (none / 0)

I'm not clinging to anything. You said she was trying to bring him down. I just pointed out that he current problems are of his own choosing. It may be hard for Obama die-hards like you to believe this, but not all of his problems are caused by the Clintons.

Besides, the supers can vote however they want and the voters want them to support the winner of the popular vote, whomever she is.

Linfar's co-blogger opposing John McCain

by psychodrew on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:02:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: About as meaningful (2.00 / 1)

Heh. "whomever she is."

Alright, dude, but remember by your argument, if Obama wins the popular vote, you just admitted it would be over and you'll be campaigning for Obama with me in the fall.

Hooray for John McCain!

by ragekage on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:05:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: About as meaningful (none / 0)

If Obama wins the popular vote, if the MI & FL issues are settled fairly, and if Hillary Clinton is treated with respect, I will campaign for Obama this fall.

I have repeatedly stated that the issues, the progressive cause, is the most important thing.

Linfar's co-blogger opposing John McCain

by psychodrew on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:07:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: About as meaningful (2.00 / 1)

Then know Obama will certainly seat Michigan and Florida; no doubt about it. DNC should have done a 50% cut, we'd have avoided all of this bullshit on all sides. Their best best is to split MI 55/45, Florida as is, and cut 'em 50%, which would be about as fair as things get. Though there was some Michigan legislator who had a good idea, I forget how his deal went, but it sounded good.

Anyway, if June 4th comes around and Obama leads in these metrics, if Senator Clinton steps down and campaigns like hell for Senator Obama, and we have a joint statement from them, they'll mend all these rifts and people like you and me can enjoy the things we share in common, which are far and away more than the things we have apart. Senator Clinton and her supporters are a key element to the Democratic party and winning in the fall. United, we stand; divided, we fall. And Senator Clinton can pretty much write her own ticket for whatever she would like to do.

My personal favorite would be SCOTUS. Tee hee! Think of the neocons hyperventilating!

Hooray for John McCain!

by ragekage on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:16:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: About as meaningful (none / 0)

Hillary on the court would be fun. And she would sail through the Senate. There is a tradition in the Senate of not opposing the nominations of fellow senators.

Linfar's co-blogger opposing John McCain

by psychodrew on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:09:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: About as meaningful (2.00 / 1)

Sweet Lord...

You STILL buy the NAFTA story....?

I just knew I should have kept that swampland... I could have sold it here for a fortune...!

Like the nominee, don't like the nominee... Our nominee is still better than John McCain...

by JenKinFLA on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:54:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: About as meaningful (2.00 / 1)

I'm still waiting on Obama to decide on which of his five explanations for that meeting is true:

The Obama campaign offered at least five different, and frequently contradictory explanations, of Goolsbee's meeting with the Canadian government. According to a memo produced by the Canadian government, Goolsbee told the Canadians not take Obama's anti-NAFTA rhetoric seriously because it was merely "political positioning."

5. 3/10/08 - Sen. Obama: The meeting did happen, they did discuss NAFTA, but advisor just said Obama wanted to make NAFTA 'stronger for U.S. workers.' "So here's what happens. You've got one of my economic advisors goes and visits a Canadian embassy and they're asking him questions and he says, 'Well, Senator Obama isn't planning to repeal NAFTA, but he wants to amend it to make it stronger for U.S. workers.' The Canadian embassy writes it up as, 'Well, maybe Obama is not as tough on NAFTA as you might think.' And the Clintons start waving this and saying, 'See? Actually, he's the one.'" [Mississippi Rally, 3/10/08]

4. 2/29/08: Sen. Obama: 'It did not happen.' Anchor: "So, completely inaccurate, did not happen, end of discussion." Sen. Obama: "It did not happen." [WKYC TV, 2/29/08]

3. 2/28/08 - Rice: 'There had been no contact.' "The Canadian ambassador issued a statement that was absolutely false. There had been no contact. There had been no discussions on NAFTA. So we take the Canadians at their word...period." [MSNBC, Susan Rice, 2/28/08]

2. 2/27/08 - Obama advisor just said 'hello.' "Goolsbee: Canada's consul general in Chicago contacted him `at one point to say `hello' because their office is around the corner." [ABC, 2/29/08]

1. 2/27/08 - 'No conversations have taken place' with the Canadian government on NAFTA. "Earlier Thursday, the Obama campaign insisted that no conversations have taken place with any of its senior ranks and representatives of the Canadian government on the NAFTA issue." [CTV, 2/29/08]

Linfar's co-blogger opposing John McCain

by psychodrew on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:06:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: About as meaningful (none / 0)

From the Toronto (that's in Canada Star)...

"The diplomatic incident began when Ian Brodie, Harper's chief of staff, reportedly told CTV News staffers in a private conversation on Feb. 26 that Hillary Clinton's aides had signalled Canada that her complaints about the North American Free Trade Agreement should not be taken too seriously.

That led inexplicably to a report out of CTV in Washington that Canadian officials had been assured by Obama's aides that his calls to renegotiate NAFTA were just political posturing. This report damaged Obama's chances in two key Democratic party primaries and generated accusations of political interference by the Harper government."

They've called for a formal inquiry....

Like the nominee, don't like the nominee... Our nominee is still better than John McCain...

by JenKinFLA on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:25:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: About as meaningful (none / 0)

A formal inquiry is great. Hillary called on the government and the media to release the names of any members of her campaign who may have contacted the government.

This is from the Regina Leader-Post, a newspaper in Saskatchewan:

But Obama lost Ohio's Democratic primary on March 4 to Clinton after reports his senior economic adviser, Austan Goolsbee, told Canada's consul general in Chicago that the Illinois senator's tough talk on NAFTA was just campaign rhetoric. The controversy is thought to have contributed to Obama's loss in Ohio, and Clinton has used it to hammer Obama among voters in Pennsylvania.

Doesn't sound like the Canadians are backing off the story to me.

Linfar's co-blogger opposing John McCain

by psychodrew on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:20:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

suggesting someones response is a lie (none / 0)

before they have even responded is also really out of line.

For Obama it now becomes: Faith, hope and CHANGE! And the greatest of these is Change!

by TeresaInPa on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:01:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: About as meaningful (none / 0)

Or Michigan or Florida. Oh wait...that doesn't fit your narrative, sorry.

by ProgressiveDL on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 12:56:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oops! It's NOT Obama, Stupid! (2.00 / 6)

Yeah, that was a stupid article. There was no basis in fact.

I actually liked it when the Scotsman held Powers on the record after she attempted to take her comments off the record after she had made them. So since they did that, I'd like them to reveal who their sources were for this story that was obviously untrue from the moment it was published.

This thing is going until at least Indy/NC. Hillary's had a 20-point lead in Penn for the better part of a year. It'd be insane to think that she could blow that lead.

John McCain: Healthcare for Kids? In America? No way

by bosdcla14 on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 08:05:38 PM EST

Re: Oops! It's NOT Obama, Stupid! (2.00 / 3)

I'd be satisfied with a retraction. I don't think the individuals have to be identified, but it would be nice to know if the sources had to ties to or were part of the Obama campaign.

Linfar's co-blogger opposing John McCain

by psychodrew on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 08:09:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oops! It's NOT Obama, Stupid! (none / 0)

Win how?

My candidate lost fair and square. So did yours. Get over it and let's kick McSame's ass!

by RLMcCauley on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 08:12:01 PM EST

Re: Oops! It's NOT Obama, Stupid! (2.00 / 2)

A popular vote lead is still well within her reach. And if the Florida/Michigan issue is not resolved, an Obama victory will not be legitimate.

Don't shut this down before the issues are sorted and the votes are counted.

Linfar's co-blogger opposing John McCain

by psychodrew on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 08:16:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oops! It's NOT Obama, Stupid! (none / 0)

The popular vote is not the measure. It's the delegates.

MI & FL will be seated but they won't help her anyway. By the end of this he'll be ahead even with MI & FL because of course MI will never be split in such a manner that only gives him 1 delegate.

My candidate lost fair and square. So did yours. Get over it and let's kick McSame's ass!

by RLMcCauley on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 08:36:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oops! It's NOT Obama, Stupid! (2.00 / 4)

Before Obama shut down re-votes in OH and MI, Rasmussen polled voters and asked them who the superdelegates should support if one candidate got the popular vote and the other candidate got the most pledged delegates. And guess what they said:

In the craziness of the race for the Democratic Presidential Nomination, it is possible that one candidate might finish the Primary Season with the most pledged delegates while another could end up with the most popular votes. If that happens, 57% of voters nationwide believe the nomination should go to the candidate with the most votes overall. A Rasmussen Reports telephone survey found that just 26% disagree and say the nomination should go to the candidate with the most pledged delegates.

Among Democratic voters, 59% believe the candidate with the most popular votes deserves the nomination while 25% take the opposite view. Barack Obama will almost certainly wind up with more pledged delegates than Hillary Clinton. However, in what might create a nightmare scenario for Democratic Party leaders, it is also quite possible that Clinton will wind up with more popular votes than Obama.

Still, 45% of Obama voters believe that the nomination should go to the candidate with the most popular votes rather than the candidate with the most pledged delegates. Just 32% of Obama supporters believe the candidate with the most pledged delegates should win.

This is why Obama didn't want re-votes in MI & FL.

Linfar's co-blogger opposing John McCain

by psychodrew on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 08:48:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oops! It's NOT Obama, Stupid! (none / 0)

Weird that he controls the legislatures of those states. How did he get that power?

I'm sorry. Do you think the DNC is going to change the rules because some voters want the popular vote to be the decided?

My candidate lost fair and square. So did yours. Get over it and let's kick McSame's ass!

by RLMcCauley on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 08:52:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Silence is acquiesence. (2.00 / 4)

If he wanted those re-votes to happen, they would have.

Linfar's co-blogger opposing John McCain

by psychodrew on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 08:55:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Silence is acquiesence. (2.00 / 1)

And if Clinton had wanted it in a manner that was conciliatory to both sides, it would have been done, too. Don't give me that BS. Both sides were gaming for political advantage, don't give me this bleeding-heart, my-candidate-cares-about-the-little-guy story.

Hooray for John McCain!

by ragekage on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:05:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Silence is acquiesence. (2.00 / 4)

What are you talking about?

And if Clinton had wanted it in a manner that was conciliatory to both sides, it would have been done, too.

She was willing to set aside her victories and stand before the voters again. Barack Obama sat silently on the sidelines while he supporters in Michigan refused to co-operate.

A victory without FL & MI sorted will not be legimate and "hoping" for it won't change that fact.

Linfar's co-blogger opposing John McCain

by psychodrew on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:29:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Silence is acquiesence. (2.00 / 1)

Uh huh. Go look for the ideas each put forward for that idea, tell me Clinton's was fair and Obama wasn't. Nonetheless, the state legislatures were the ones who jacked everything up; and your candidate was just as implicit in making sure that happened and was enforced. Now that it benefits you, I'm glad to see how self-righteous it's made you about seeing "justice" done.

Hooray for John McCain!

by ragekage on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:44:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Silence is acquiesence. (2.00 / 3)

Show me the quote where Obama said, "We need to have new votes in order to have a fair and legitimate process."

You can belittle me all you want--I've come to expect that from people who can't defend themselves--but you can't call his victory legitimate if he wins by excluding two states that he was afraid of losing.

If he had been out there calling for re-votes like Hillary, this would be entirely different. But he wasn't. He was afraid of losing his lead, so he sat on his hands. That is not leadership.

Linfar's co-blogger opposing John McCain

by psychodrew on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:47:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Silence is acquiesence. (2.00 / 1)

Ahh. I see. So, your candidate can play the system with the "Tee hee, I never intended to not let Michigan and Florida not count!" and it's alright. She can do things that benefits her politically, but not Obama. No, sir. Ignore the fact I said they both did what was politically expedient for exactly that reason, and then feel free to insult me personally. I guess I've come to expect that from you; I may disagree with your points, but I certainly don't stoop to that level, sir.

Well, don't worry. Michigan and Florida will be seated in time to see Obama nominated.

Hooray for John McCain!

by ragekage on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:57:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Are you dizzy from all the spinning? (none / 0)

You don't have a quote from him because he never made one.

Ignore the fact I said they both did what was politically expedient for exactly that reason, and then feel free to insult me personally. I guess I've come to expect that from you; I may disagree with your points, but I certainly don't stoop to that level, sir.

I didn't insult you. Does the truth hurt that much?

Linfar's co-blogger opposing John McCain

by psychodrew on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:10:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Are you dizzy from all the spinning? (2.00 / 1)

I've come to expect that from people who can't defend themselves

Just because we stand on different sides of an issue doesn't mean we need to resort to such rubbish and poppycock.

I didn't look for a quote, I was making a point; which you're not disabusing.

Hooray for John McCain!

by ragekage on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:20:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Are you dizzy from all the spinning? (none / 0)

Now that it benefits you, I'm glad to see how self-righteous it's made you about seeing "justice" done.

Is "self-righteous" a compliment in Obamaland?

Linfar's co-blogger opposing John McCain

by psychodrew on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:28:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Are you dizzy from all the spinning? (2.00 / 1)

...

Damn you, and your "good point". I guess I gotta give you that one.

Hooray for John McCain!

by ragekage on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:35:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Silence is acquiesence. (none / 0)

Uh no. He doesn't control the legislature.

My candidate lost fair and square. So did yours. Get over it and let's kick McSame's ass!

by RLMcCauley on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:12:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Silence is acquiesence. (2.00 / 1)

He sat on the sidelines and said nothing while his supporters in Michigan opposed a re-vote.

That is not leadership. If he wanted re-votes, why wasn't he out on the news calling for them? You know why? He didn't want them. He is afraid to face those voters again because he is afraid of losing.

That is not democracy! It may be the rules. It may be fair under the rules. But it's not democracy.

Linfar's co-blogger opposing John McCain

by psychodrew on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:31:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Silence is acquiesence. (none / 0)

You mean he let the legislative process work itself out?

Yeah. He's polling better in MI than HRC so I doubt that's an issue.

Name some names.

Actually there is no right to a primary at all so you apparently want to scrap our whole system.

My candidate lost fair and square. So did yours. Get over it and let's kick McSame's ass!

by RLMcCauley on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:46:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Silence is acquiesence. (2.00 / 1)

The polls had them tied in Michigan.

There is not right to a primary. I absolutely agree with you. Under the rules, the DNC doesn't have to do anything. Every action taken by the DNC has been consistent with the rules. I'm not disputing that. The voters of MI & FL are not "entitled" to new primaries.

But absent new primaries, if Obama ends up our nominee, a lot of Democrats will not see his victory as legitimate. If he had just stood up and gone on TV and said, "We need a new contest. We need to make this work," things would be different. But he didn't. He sat on the sidelines and said nothings. He sent out his surrogates to call for a 50-50 split.

Linfar's co-blogger opposing John McCain

by psychodrew on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:51:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Silence is acquiesence. (none / 0)

Name some names. Show me how he took over the MI legislature.

My candidate lost fair and square. So did yours. Get over it and let's kick McSame's ass!

by RLMcCauley on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:12:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Silence is acquiesence. (none / 0)

I didn't say he took over the legislature. What I'm saying is that he did nothing.

Linfar's co-blogger opposing John McCain

by psychodrew on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:15:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Silence is acquiesence. (none / 0)

"his supporters in Michigan opposed a re-vote"

Who?

My candidate lost fair and square. So did yours. Get over it and let's kick McSame's ass!

by RLMcCauley on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:17:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Silence is acquiesence. (none / 0)

From Yahoo News:

Opposition from lawmakers backing Illinois Sen. Barack Obama's campaign seemed certain to scuttle any proposal to hold a June 3 "do-over" Democratic primary in the Midwestern state.

BTW, I have a meeting. I'll be back in an hour.

Linfar's co-blogger opposing John McCain

by psychodrew on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:30:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Silence is acquiesence. (none / 0)

I can't find any names of legislators that are blocking a revote but it seems that the Dems that voted in the GOP side to screw with them wouldn't have been able to vote in the proposal I read about. That's patently unfair so if that was the final proposal no one should have supported it.

My candidate lost fair and square. So did yours. Get over it and let's kick McSame's ass!

by RLMcCauley on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:43:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Silence is acquiesence. (none / 0)

Here is the real problem: the revote idea couldn't have been paid for by the states because Medicare and education costs are already killing them. The only alternative put forth was one where 10 of Hillary's closest friends paid for it:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/el ection2008/2008-03-19-michigan_N.htm

Regardless of if there was a re-vote or not, you can't count the delegates as if they didn't break the rules or every state will be moving up in 2012. Then you will have votes starting in November, a year before the general election.

by ProgressiveDL on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:01:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Silence is acquiesence. (none / 0)

So the alternative is to do nothing, give one candidate and unfair advantage, and piss off a sizeable percentage of Hillary's base?

The money for the re-votes was there. What we didn't have was the will.

Linfar's co-blogger opposing John McCain

by psychodrew on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:25:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Silence is acquiesence. (none / 0)

The alternative to your alternative is to present a revote that is patently unfair to all the other states, because neither FL or MI would be punished. In fact, they would be rewarded by being extremely important states voting at a time they never would have if they didn't break the rules.

Yes, the money was there, but it was money coming out of Hillary's friends' pockets. I'm not comfortable with that, just as I wouldn't want it paid for by Obama's friends.

The real alternative is to wait until Obama has 2025 or Hillary drops out and then find a way to seat MI and FL while not giving them all their delegates (as punishment). FL could be seated as is and MI could be split 50/50 and then both could have their delegate count cut in half or 2/3 or whatnot.

by ProgressiveDL on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:29:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Silence is acquiesence. (none / 0)

New Hampshire also moved up their primaries ahead of the rules. It was given a waiver for doing so. When Florida and Michigan did the same thing, they were punished.

The other states may have hurt feelings that MI & FL are being "rewarded," but that is a small price to pay for a more legitimate nomination process.

Linfar's co-blogger opposing John McCain

by psychodrew on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:38:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Silence is acquiesence. (none / 0)

First of all, that's an article written by Sen. Levin, who has a clear bias for Michigan. That being said, if we assume he is correct on the facts, New Hampshire moved their primary from 3rd place to 2nd place, where Michigan leapfrogged in front of 9 states (based on the 2004 dates). Yes, New Hampshire should be punished. But Michigan should be punished more, since their transgression was that much larger.

I would support a Michigan re-vote (with delegate penalties) if it was paid for by the Michigan Democratic Party or the DNC. Any other boosters are invalid, in my opinion. And they can not ban people that voted Republican or didn't vote. That defeats the whole purpose. Anyone that was a registered Democrat as of January 15th gets to vote.

And I'm not against letting Florida count as is as long as there is a delegate penalty.

by ProgressiveDL on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:52:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oops! It's NOT Obama, Stupid! (none / 0)

*to be the decider even.

My candidate lost fair and square. So did yours. Get over it and let's kick McSame's ass!

by RLMcCauley on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 08:54:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What rule change? (2.00 / 1)

The superdelegates can vote however they want. If one candidate is ahead in the popular vote and the other ahead in pledged delegates, the polling indicates that the voters want the supers to go with the candidate with the most popular votes. There is no rule changed involved.

Linfar's co-blogger opposing John McCain

by psychodrew on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 08:56:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What rule change? (2.00 / 1)

Yup, he's right, they'll vote for whoever they want.

Who is Obama.

Seriously, though, let 'em think Clinton has a chance if they want to, I guess.

Hooray for John McCain!

by ragekage on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:06:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What rule change? (none / 0)

They won't go against the pledged delegates.

My candidate lost fair and square. So did yours. Get over it and let's kick McSame's ass!

by RLMcCauley on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:11:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That's not what the voters want. (2.00 / 1)

They want the nomination to go to whomever has the majority of the popular vote:

In the craziness of the race for the Democratic Presidential Nomination, it is possible that one candidate might finish the Primary Season with the most pledged delegates while another could end up with the most popular votes. If that happens, 57% of voters nationwide believe the nomination should go to the candidate with the most votes overall. A Rasmussen Reports telephone survey found that just 26% disagree and say the nomination should go to the candidate with the most pledged delegates.

Among Democratic voters, 59% believe the candidate with the most popular votes deserves the nomination while 25% take the opposite view. Barack Obama will almost certainly wind up with more pledged delegates than Hillary Clinton. However, in what might create a nightmare scenario for Democratic Party leaders, it is also quite possible that Clinton will wind up with more popular votes than Obama.

Still, 45% of Obama voters believe that the nomination should go to the candidate with the most popular votes rather than the candidate with the most pledged delegates. Just 32% of Obama supporters believe the candidate with the most pledged delegates should win.

This poll is the reason why Obama would not get behind do-overs in MI & FL. Period.

Linfar's co-blogger opposing John McCain

by psychodrew on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:40:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That's not what the voters want. (none / 0)

Perhaps the voters can get the DNC to change the rules next year.

My candidate lost fair and square. So did yours. Get over it and let's kick McSame's ass!

by RLMcCauley on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:47:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oops! It's NOT Obama, Stupid! (none / 0)

Alright Drew....

What state did you vote in...?

As a primary voter from Florida, I think the only people who should be bitching about those votes not counting should be directly involved in the FL or MI mess... How fair is that, you ask...? It isn't... but it benefits me, so that's my stance on the matter.

Like the nominee, don't like the nominee... Our nominee is still better than John McCain...

by JenKinFLA on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:56:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oops! It's NOT Obama, Stupid! (none / 0)

I voted in the Democrat's Abroad primary, as I live in China.

And I can speak out on this issue if I wish. My candidate is not getting a fair shake and I'm not going to shut up about it. I realize that the Obama machine would like the Clinton people to give up, shut up, and fall in line, but we are not sheep, we won't be shoved aside, and we're going to call bullshit when we see bullshit.

And I'm calling bullshit. Obama sat on the sidelines and said nothing about re-votes.

Linfar's co-blogger opposing John McCain

by psychodrew on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:14:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oops! It's NOT Obama, Stupid! (none / 0)

Should she fire Harold Ickes?

My candidate lost fair and square. So did yours. Get over it and let's kick McSame's ass!

by RLMcCauley on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:19:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oops! It's NOT Obama, Stupid! (none / 0)

And I'm calling bullshit because there was utter silence when this was being decided!

Seriously, no protests from other states, calls of "oh, that would be unfair"... It was decided over the summer... I watched it unfold on local news. The silence was as deafening then as the chorus is now.

The deed was done then, it should remain done.

Like the nominee, don't like the nominee... Our nominee is still better than John McCain...

by JenKinFLA on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:28:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oops! It's NOT Obama, Stupid! (none / 0)

When that decision was made, this was a race for momentum, just like it is ever other year. Somebody wins a ton of contests and the other candidates drop out and endorse him.

Now this is a race for delegates and votes and not finding a way for these two states to participate gives one candidate an unfair advantage over the other. And if the situation were reversed, the media and liberal elite would be acting a lot differently.

Linfar's co-blogger opposing John McCain

by psychodrew on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:00:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oops! It's NOT Obama, Stupid! (none / 0)

Does it not bother anyone that insisting on the popular vote from the primaries as a controlling metric for who "deserves" the nomination simply ignores the existence of Iowa, Nevada, Alaska, American Samoa, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Minnesota, North Dakota, Nebraska, Washington, Maine, Hawaii, and Wyoming simply because they chose to hold caucuses instead? Yet we're unironically expected to accept the Potempkin vote in Michigan with a straight face....

Prog

by Progressive Witness on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:03:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oops! It's NOT Obama, Stupid! (none / 0)

According to the rules, the SD's can base their votes on whatever they want. The voters want them to vote for the popular vote leader. What's wrong with that.

Do YOU have a problem with the fact that Senator Obama racked up so many delegates from caucuses which disenfranchise voters?

I don't. Because those are the rules.

Linfar's co-blogger opposing John McCain

by psychodrew on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 02:06:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oops! It's NOT Obama, Stupid! (none / 0)

Hey, I'm from a primary state, and I favor primaries. OTOH, I have nothing against the Democratic parties in individual states choosing to do otherwise and hold caucuses. My sister caucused in Washington, and the notion that WA and 13 other states and territories should simply be removed from the equation because they held caucuses is far more disenfranchising that even the most poorly run caucus (and for the record, I don't consider caucuses in principle to be disenfranchising, just different).

Prog

by Progressive Witness on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 02:33:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

super delegates (none / 0)

they will decide either way. In case you need to be told once again, Obama can not win without the SDs either.

For Obama it now becomes: Faith, hope and CHANGE! And the greatest of these is Change!

by TeresaInPa on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:03:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oops! It's NOT Obama, Stupid! (2.00 / 3)

Gore wouldn't do that. He of all people knows what it is like to be strong armed in a presidential election and not be the president when he should have been. That also didn't sound like Carter. Both of them lost an election and it would be totally inappropriate for them to try to influence who loses this one, too. That would be just unimaginably arrogant. Some others could learn from their example of what is not appropriate to do.

The biggest clue that it wasn't true, though, was that the MSM didn't grab it and drill it into the ground.

by Scotch on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 08:16:11 PM EST

Re: Oops! It's NOT Obama, Stupid! (2.00 / 3)

Carter spoke about that on This Week, as well:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Finally, on this subject, sir, back in 1980, Senator Kennedy hurt your reelection campaign by fighting all the way to the convention.

I know you're not going to reveal your choice until the convention, but Senator Clinton has said she's prepared to take this all the way to the convention.

Are you worried that will hurt the Democratic Party?

CARTER: No. As a matter of fact, if you remember, 1980 -- you may not be old enough -- but...

STEPHANOPOULOS: I'm old enough.

CARTER: ... I didn't gain the support of Senator Kennedy, even after the convention.

The Democratic Party, unfortunately, was split very badly. And maybe it was my fault, because I didn't hold it together while I was president. But you may or may not remember that on the reviewing stand at the convention, after I clearly defeated Senator Kennedy two-to-one, he refused to shake my hand, ostentatiously, and made it clear to his supporters that he was not supporting me.

So, you know, that was a situation that I think, I hope was unique in American Democratic politics.

And I don't have any doubt, at this point, that no matter who wins at the Democratic convention, that the other candidate and all of the Democratic delegates will fully support the one who is finally chosen.

Linfar's co-blogger opposing John McCain

by psychodrew on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 08:19:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oops! It's NOT Obama, Stupid! (2.00 / 3)

What a jackass Kennedy was and is. I guess he feels it is fair game no matter who he is trying to destroy. Maybe he has a problem with being outshone by his brothers and never making it to the big times in the whitehouse. You might say he's bitter about a few things and transparently so.

by Scotch on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 08:27:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oops! It's NOT Obama, Stupid! (2.00 / 1)

For me, this will be Teddy's legacy:

There's more to Sen. Edward Kennedy's endorsement of Barack Obama than meets the eye. Apparently, part of the reason why the liberal lion from Massachusetts embraced Obama was because of a perceived slight at the Kennedy family's civil rights legacy by the other Democratic presidential primary frontrunner, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.).

Sources say Kennedy was privately furious at Clinton for her praise of President Lyndon Baines Johnson for getting the 1964 Civil Rights Act accomplished. Jealously guarding the legacy of the Kennedy family dynasty, Senator Kennedy felt Clinton's LBJ comments were an implicit slight of his brother, President John F. Kennedy, who first proposed the landmark civil rights initiative in a famous televised civil rights address in June 1963.

One anonymous source described Kennedy as having a "meltdown" in reaction to Clinton's comments. Another source close to the Kennedy family says Senator Kennedy was upset about two instances that occurred on a single day of campaigning in New Hampshire on Jan. 7, a day before the state's primary.

I guess he wasn't around when his brother said, "Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country."

Linfar's co-blogger opposing John McCain

by psychodrew on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 08:53:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oops! It's NOT Obama, Stupid! (none / 0)

Senator Kennedy's legislative record outshines everyone who has ever been in the Senate... including his brother.

And he is not a jackass...

Like the nominee, don't like the nominee... Our nominee is still better than John McCain...

by JenKinFLA on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:30:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oops! It's NOT Obama, Stupid! (none / 0)

Would that include No Child Left Behind?

by Scotch on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 12:19:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oops! It's NOT Obama, Stupid! (2.00 / 1)

I wasn't that interested in politics back then, but I remember I worked with this woman who was a Kennedy fanatic, and she hated Jimmy Carter, even well after the convention. I didn't realize Kennedy refused to shake Carter's hand - I can't see either Clinton or Obama acting like that.

by AnnC on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 08:45:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oops! It's NOT Obama, Stupid! (1.00 / 1)

And this is why I am happy that neither Carter nor Gore have endorsed anyone... Judging by your views and opinions of Kennedy, I can only imagine the vitriolic comments if either of the other two came out against your candidate...

Like the nominee, don't like the nominee... Our nominee is still better than John McCain...

by JenKinFLA on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:59:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

imagine? (none / 0)

really, do you all over get tired of making shit up about how or what people think or what they will say beforehand?

For Obama it now becomes: Faith, hope and CHANGE! And the greatest of these is Change!

by TeresaInPa on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:10:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oops! It's NOT Obama, Stupid! (2.00 / 3)

I can't believe that anyone even gave it a moment's thought. the story came out just after Gore made his statement on 60 Minutes and the same day Carter was on Sunday talk.

by americanincanada on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 08:18:53 PM EST

I am sure it was Obama's people (2.00 / 3)

who put this story out; however, I do not understand why it is not more detremental for people to find out the story is false than positive when the story is first put out. Doesn't make any sense to me at all.

by macmcd on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 08:19:07 PM EST

If Jimmy Carter wants... (2.00 / 1)

to edorse Obama...Good. This will help Hillary Clinton.

by soyousay on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:53:27 PM EST

Re: If Jimmy Carter wants... (2.00 / 1)

Jimmy Carter is still well respected in Democratic circles.

Like the nominee, don't like the nominee... Our nominee is still better than John McCain...

by JenKinFLA on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:59:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If Jimmy Carter wants... (1.00 / 1)

Freepers are unaware of this.

My candidate lost fair and square. So did yours. Get over it and let's kick McSame's ass!

by RLMcCauley on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:13:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If Jimmy Carter wants... (1.00 / 1)

Good point....

Like the nominee, don't like the nominee... Our nominee is still better than John McCain...

by JenKinFLA on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:30:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oops! It's NOT Obama, Stupid! (none / 0)

I sure I saw this one weeks ago.

It's time to restore balance and fairness to our economy,... It's time to stop giving tax cuts to corporations that ship jobs overseas... - Barack Obama

by Lefty Coaster on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 12:43:37 AM EST

Re: Oops! It's NOT Obama, Stupid! (none / 0)

The original story was published on April 13th and the story on Taylor Marsh's blog appeared on Tuesday afternoon. I searched MyDD to see if anybody else had written anything on this before I published and didn't find anything.

Linfar's co-blogger opposing John McCain

by psychodrew on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:30:26 AM 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.