Memphis coach, fans call for new rule to apply retroactively

Just in over the wire...

Calipari suggests new rule be applied retroactively, giving Memphis win

(Sportswire, San Antonio) John Calipari, head coach of the Memphis men's basketball team which lost the NCCA title game last night to Kansas, has called for a change in rules on three point shots to allow one foot of a shooter to be on or inside the three-point line at the time of the shot.

Calipari suggested the rule change be applied retroactively, giving Memphis a one-point regulation win based on the fact that referees took a point away from Memphis in the waning moments of the game after reversing what had been ruled a three-point basket.

"It only makes sense that the rules, as they have been written for years, are not appropriate and should be changed retroactively," Calipari said at his post-game press conference. "We were the favorites and we should have won this game. It's only the referees and this stupid rule that took the game away from us."

Memphis fans remained in the stands after the final horn signaled Kansas' improbable win, chanting, "Change the rules! Change the rules!"

Nevertheless, NCAA officials noted that the rule has been in place since the onset of the three-point shot in 1986.

One NCAA source suggested that the complaint by Calipari and Memphis fans amounted to "nothing but sour grapes."

"Everyone plays by the same rules," the source said. "Calipari and Memphis knew the rules just like Kansas did."

Calipari said he will continue to protest the rule and may even take the NCAA to court to change the rule retroactively and award his team the victory.

"This just isn't fair," he said, wiping away tears. "We were supposed to win this thing. It was ours. We deserved it. It was our turn."

Calipari then left the podium. slammed his clipboard to the ground, stomped his feet and screamed, "We were supposed to win!" as he headed off down the hall.



Display:


so funny (1.83 / 6)

I'm starting to think that Obama supporters are pretty insecure with his pledged delegate lead or we would not be seeing these lame attempts at humor.


by njsketch on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:12:13 PM EST

You don't like it? (1.90 / 31)

I'm hurt!


by Bob Johnson on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:13:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You don't like it? (1.50 / 4)

Oh, he'll change his mind at about 3 o'clock this morning.
Take your phone off the hook. Why screw up a good night's sleep to get a retraction from someone on a board that supports the Queen of Reject and Renounce?
by kestrel9000 on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:16:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You don't like it? (2.00 / 6)

Lets not forget that they also beat all the teams that really matter


by anujtron on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:53:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Humor (2.00 / 2)

Is going to be needed to help heal some of bitterness and resentment that's accumulated during this primary season.

Humorless people have always scared the crap out of me. Almost as much so as the people who smile when they're fuming angry.


Let the children lose it Let the children use it Let all the children boogie
by toyomama on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 05:18:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Humor (none / 0)

sometimes there is nothing to do BUT smile when you are fuming angry though...


ENOUGH!
by JDF on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 11:00:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You don't like it? (2.00 / 4)

nice diary, Bob. I would tip and rec you, but I'm on some sort of probation.
by power of truth on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:21:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Double-secret, no doubt. (1.77 / 9)

"Face it, kid! Ya' fucked up! Ya' trusted us!"


by Bob Johnson on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:25:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Mojo for (2.00 / 1)

Animal House quote.


No Way, No How, No McCain!
by GFORD on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 03:32:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You don't like it? (2.00 / 1)

Ditto.  Apparently you lose your power to recommend things when you get troll-rated for saying "If people feel that $96 is still too large and it lends support to public financing of elections, I can understand that.  But to simply assume that Clinton's average is lower when the opposite is true is a disservice to the level of debate here."

So Bob, a nod of the head in your direction.  Plus, you forgot to add that Memphis came out and scored some baskets during halftime and those should count.    


John McCain: Healthcare for Kids? In America? No way
by bosdcla14 on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 01:39:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

the metaphor goes both ways (none / 0)

Obama is Memphis not Nashville.

Or did you not realize what a straight man does?


by debcoop on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 01:25:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: so funny (2.00 / 2)

Since when does only one side get to have all the fun?


by rfahey22 on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:18:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: so funny (2.00 / 7)

LOL

Yet the Clinton one just down the list is a-okay, huh? You guys crack me up. Heh. At least I can appreciate the humor and keep a somewhat unbiased look at these things.


Hooray for John McCain!
by ragekage on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:18:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Actually... (2.00 / 7)

Most of us are pretty cocky and secure. We're just waiting for this thing to end.

But in the meantime, it's occasionally worth it to mock the silly arguments coming out of the Hillary camp.


by Democratic Unity on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:19:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Actually... (none / 0)

Yes, we've definitely noticed the cocky part.


No Way. No How. No McCain.
by Denny Crane on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 09:03:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: so funny (2.00 / 1)

the truth is the Obama campaign has been lying about the actual DNC rules and his supporters are blindly believing him. Regarding MI and FL, if you read the rules and actual transcripts of the Rules and Bylaws Committee meetings where both states were discussed, you would learn that the rules intend, encourage and lay out several roads to resolving timing disputes so the delegates get sat. During the RBC hearings, committee members said we realize that although we will enact these sanctions, we realize that we cannot permanently disenfranchise both states and expect it to not have disasterous consequences in Nov.

Also they would realize that Obama not being on the MI ballot in way impacts the validity of the MI results. The actual rules make the candidate responsible for putting their name on the ballot AND KEEPING IT THERE. In the RBC transcrips reps from the MI Dem Party said they BEGGED Obama not to remove his name from the ballot (the DNC neither asked or commanded anyone to do so) The told him that the primary will go on and many MI voters will feel slighted if he removes his name. The transcrips also indicate that he removed his name to please Iowa rather than anything related to the DNC or the Delegate Selection Rules.

Also according to the actual DNC rules Obama has not yet won and will not be able to win without the support of superdelegates. The actual rules command the superdelegates to exercise an independent vote for who they think will be the strongest candidate and allow them to use whatever reasoning they feel best. Why are the Obama supporters so whiney and petulant insisting that the supers must ignore the DNC rules and vote according to the popular vote when that was Obama's biggest lead and then switching positions after TX where they now do not mention the popular vote but insist only the lead in pledged delegates should matter.

No one on the Clinton campaign has threatened retribution against supers who support Obama. there are a number of long term very progressive Democrats who will be facing primary challenges by whiney Obama supporters who are throwing temper tantrums because these elected officials used their own best judgement and decided to support Hillary.

Clinton's position on FL and MI has been consistent since Sept 07. Obama's keeps shifting depending on the polls or current delegate/ popular vote.


Jon Winkleman
by Jon Winkleman on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 05:37:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hilarious (2.00 / 10)

Hillary supporters, there's a lesson here:

Your attempts to change the rules after the fact is worthy of mockery.


by Democratic Unity on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:16:41 PM EST

Hold up (2.00 / 1)

Are you saying this inscrutable diary has something to do with Hillary?

What are you talking about?  Something about rule-changing?  Please enlighten me.


by Trickster on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 04:34:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hold up (2.00 / 4)

No. Really. It's all about basketball. We're just laughing at how inane the Memphis coach is acting.


by bookish on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 07:06:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

the metaphor works the other way too (none / 0)

Hillary is Nashville and Obama wants to screw the people of Michigan and Florida.

When you use metaphors to make a point you need to make sure it can't be used against you.


by debcoop on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 01:27:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: the metaphor works the other way too (2.00 / 1)

I think it is called humor and not an attempt at a metaphorical argument.  Slash and Burn people have to be able to laugh once in a while, I have even seen your candidate make jokes during debates!


Tony Romo for Secretary of Awesome
by kasjogren on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 12:17:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Memphis coach, fans call for new rule to apply (2.00 / 2)

This doesn't really help things, no reason to antagonize people.


Proudly joining the legions of people and states that don't matter on May 20th.
by Obama Independent on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:16:42 PM EST

Bob once wrote a whole diary at dkos (1.80 / 5)

to mock a another member who was clearly mentally unstable, at least at the moment.  Most people thought it was funny, but of course it was just cruel attention getting and juvenile.


DON'T COUNT THE VOTES, DON'T COUNT THE VOTES.... Obama and the Obamaettes... spring 2008
by TeresaINPennsylvania on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:20:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bob once wrote a whole diary at dkos (2.00 / 8)

I thought we had reached detente on the anti-candidate sig lines? Wouldn't a nice pro-Hillary message be a lot better?


by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:43:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bob once wrote a whole diary at dkos (none / 0)

not it is much better to insult everyone who disagrees with you.


ENOUGH!
by JDF on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 11:03:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bob once wrote a whole diary at dkos (none / 0)

Seriously - I feel like flagging that profile every time I see the sig line.  Matter of fact, I'm going to do just that.


by Mostly on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 11:06:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bob once wrote a whole diary at dkos (2.00 / 2)

cruel attention getting and juvenile?

I guess that's the definition of good satire then.


by IowaMike on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 03:31:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It's a humorous response to... (2.00 / 7)

... this diary, below.


by Bob Johnson on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:20:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's a humorous response to... (none / 0)

oh snap


John McCain is surprisingly bad for this country
by minnesotaryan on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 12:56:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

and it's a pretty good one (none / 0)

similar concept:

http://endpoliticsasusual.blogspot.com/2 008/04/hillary-says-memphis-national-cha mp.html

As for newportnewsdem's diary, I can see why a Clinton supporter would be inspired by KU's win but s/he went too far with the "two players not allowed to play" bit. And the Clinton folks can comfort themselves that KU busted up Obama's bracket on Saturday (he picked UNC to win it all).


by Mobar on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 01:41:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

people's votes are more important (2.00 / 4)

than a sports contest Bob.  As usual your humor is not really funny.


DON'T COUNT THE VOTES, DON'T COUNT THE VOTES.... Obama and the Obamaettes... spring 2008
by TeresaINPennsylvania on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:17:11 PM EST

*sniff* (1.95 / 21)

You don't like my humor. How shall I go on?


by Bob Johnson on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:19:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: *sniff* (2.00 / 5)

I have no doubt you will go on being unfunny.


DON'T COUNT THE VOTES, DON'T COUNT THE VOTES.... Obama and the Obamaettes... spring 2008
by TeresaINPennsylvania on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:21:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: *sniff* (2.00 / 1)

I see soitgoes is TR abusing again.


by interestedbystander on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:40:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Admins take note! (2.00 / 1)

TR abuse.


by ReillyDiefenbach on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 04:12:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Admins take note! (2.00 / 0)

meh...  if they actually had to patrol for that, they would never get anything else done.. up to and including breathing.


Like the nominee, don't like the nominee... Our nominee is still better than John McCain...
by JenKinFLA on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 04:23:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Admins take note! (2.00 / 1)

It is way past time to get rid of the 1 rating.


by Skaje on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 04:27:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: people's votes are more important (2.00 / 4)

Where were you when Clinton supporters posted this analogy with names reversed? I bet you think that one was okay, though, huh?


Hooray for John McCain!
by ragekage on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:20:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

they didn't (none / 0)

you missed the point.  I am not surprised.


DON'T COUNT THE VOTES, DON'T COUNT THE VOTES.... Obama and the Obamaettes... spring 2008
by TeresaINPennsylvania on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:22:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: they didn't (2.00 / 1)

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/4/8/11243 9/3058


Hooray for John McCain!
by ragekage on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:23:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Read it again and you will understand (none / 0)

what that diary meant


by indus on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:12:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Now Bob (2.00 / 1)

There is absolutely nothing wrong with a man or woman crying and I don't see how it makes for relevant ;)


Also, a campaign for POTUS is not a game.


by linc on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:22:06 PM EST

Heh. (1.90 / 10)

I am crying now. I can't find my blankie.


by Bob Johnson on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:25:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Now Bob (2.00 / 6)

This is just a response to the previous diary (linked above) that linked the campaign for POTUS to the very same game, though obviously using the analogy in Clinton's favor.

If these two diaries have taught me anything, it's that sports can be used as an analogy to prove just about anything, even both sides of the same debate.


by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:48:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Same goes for the Bible. (2.00 / 5)

And polls.

(That's why having a pollster as your "chief strategist" is a mistake.)


by Bob Johnson on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:51:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Now Bob (2.00 / 3)

hey, I just noticed I used "linked" twice in one sentence and "anything" twice in another.

Is that art?


by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:05:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I think it's redundancy... (2.00 / 2)

... over and over.


by Bob Johnson on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:11:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I think it's redundancy... (2.00 / 3)

oh please! If there's one thing I hate more than anything else on earth, it's hyperbole.


by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:14:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I've told you a million times, (none / 0)

stop exaggerating!


Nos causidicus Obama , ergo nos non suadeo
by rb608 on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 11:13:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Redundant AND repetetive! ;) n/t (2.00 / 2)


Wouldn't it be nice if there were no rhetorical questions?
by Elsinora on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 03:57:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You can say THAT again. (2.00 / 2)


by Bob Johnson on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 04:00:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Redundant AND repetitive! ;) n/t (2.00 / 3)


Wouldn't it be nice if there were no rhetorical questions?
by Elsinora on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 04:18:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Redundant AND repetitive! ;) n/t (none / 0)

Very nice sig, by the by :)


John McCain is surprisingly bad for this country
by minnesotaryan on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 12:59:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Now Bob (none / 0)

Clearly made it past the searching eyes from the Department of Redundancy Department.


by bookish on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 03:19:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Memphis coach, fans call for new rule (2.00 / 4)

You know, the satire could have been made a little sharper, if you were so inclined.  I'm sure "Calipari" had no problem with the three-point line during the regular season, for instance.


by rfahey22 on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:57:18 PM EST

Re: Brilliantly Caustic Allegory (2.00 / 9)

yes, but only after those particular players were declared academically ineligible.


by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:14:52 PM EST

More mis/disinformation. (2.00 / 5)

... Obama has declared "academically ineligible"...

1. It was their state parties and elected officials who made their votes "academically ineligible."

2. The DNC imposed the sanctions on these states, not Obama or his campaign.

3. All candidates knew the rules and agreed to abide by the rules.

I will wager that the Michigan and Florida delegations will be seated at the conventions.


by Bob Johnson on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 08:11:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More mis/disinformation. (2.00 / 1)

And what about all those voter's who:

1. Didn't vote because they thought the primary was disqualified by the DNC

2. Didn't vote because their candidate wasn't on the ballot paper

These two groups would be 'disenfranchised' if FL and MI were seated as is.

Moral appeals to 'making every vote count' lose their force when it only suits one candidate.

And Saddam made all the votes count. He had turnouts of 90 per cent, nearly all voting for him, because his was the only name on the ballot. Hmmm. That's sounds familiar...

Sorry. I'll troll myself for snark.  


by brit on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 07:57:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama fans disrupt unity again (1.50 / 2)

Once again, the Obama supporters spit in the face of any possible party unity. Once again, they show that all they want to do is win the olympic trials, but not the olympic gold. Once again they show that it is perfectly acceptable to them to elect John McCain in November, because without party unity that is the inevitabe outcome. I would suggest to all Obama supporters that they at least try to be the change that they wish to see happen in this country.


The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers. -- Thomas Jefferson
by pollbuster on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:26:05 PM EST

Okay. (2.00 / 2)

If this diary really is "spitting in the face of party unity," then so be it.

I look at it as a humorous response to Newport News Dem's diary, below.

But we all have our own feelings!


by Bob Johnson on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:30:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Okay. (none / 0)

If this diary really is "spitting in the face of party unity," then so be it.

I look at it as a humorous response to Newport News Dem's diary, below.

But we all have our own feelings!

There may have been a lot of ways to put it, but to say: "....then so be it," really says a lot.


The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers. -- Thomas Jefferson
by pollbuster on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:59:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hey, folks will take it... (2.00 / 2)

... the way they want to take it.

You're offended. I get it.

Thats the beautiful thing about America! You are free to be offended while others find it humorous!


by Bob Johnson on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:05:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hey, folks will take it... (none / 0)

Oh, so first it was humor, and now it's about America. Have a nice day.


The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers. -- Thomas Jefferson
by pollbuster on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 03:05:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Humor is part of America! (2.00 / 1)

Isn't it?


by Bob Johnson on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 03:06:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Humor is part of America! (none / 0)

He loves to stomp off in a huff, which is code for "I'm losing, so I'm getting the heck outta here!"


Hooray for John McCain!
by ragekage on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 12:45:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama fans disrupt unity again (1.50 / 2)

Oh, wahhhh.

If you can't take a joke...


by bookish on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:44:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama fans disrupt unity again (2.00 / 3)

c'mon,

It is those who are calling for a retroactive rule change who are threatening party unity. Winning dirty like that would guarantee the Republicans the White House.

Humor is an exceedingly gentle way of dealing with such delusional spin/crap.


John McCain: Cheney with a temper
by wrb on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 06:57:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Memphis coach said (1.33 / 3)

"It just isn't fair, wiping away his tears.  We were suppose to win this thing.  It was ours.  We deserved it. It was our turn."

SOUND FAMILIAR????????????????


by ajleiker on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:38:43 PM EST

Umm... (none / 0)


by Bob Johnson on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:06:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Memphis coach, fans call for new rule to apply (none / 0)

Memphis, holding a 9 point lead with two minutes to go nevertheless loses the game. Despite calls from fans for Kansas to quit at the two minute mark so that we can begin to handicap the 2008-2009 season, manager Bill Self insisted that they were going to stay in it until all the minutes have expired and all the points are counted.

Can this happen again?


by STUBALL on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:35:35 PM EST

But for that analogy to be appropriate to this (2.00 / 4)

... electoral season, Kansas would have to be down nine with a second to go, needing the NCAA's first-ever nine-point basket to tie the game. (Or an eight-pointer plus a foul.)


by Bob Johnson on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:40:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: But for that analogy to be appropriate to this (none / 0)

Not quite.


by jaydub799 on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 04:00:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: But for that analogy to be appropriate to this (none / 0)

Eight pointer (plus a foul).  Now that's funny (and apt).


Unseen, in the background, Fate was quietly slipping the lead into the boxing glove.
by fogiv on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 05:32:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Memphis coach, fans call for new rule to apply (2.00 / 1)

and then, at half time the coach tried to put in two players from MI and Fl who were academically ineligible.


by IowaMike on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 03:38:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Memphis coach, fans call for new rule to apply (none / 0)

Wow, making light of 35 million people - probably half of which are Democrats - being rendered impotent while electing the President who will succeed the worst President in the history of the country.

Seems like we should be concentrating on getting as many people to vote as possible.  

I didn't realize the Michigan/Florida situation was a funny one. It's bad enough that there is enough political calculus being played to make one sick to their stomach.


by jaydub799 on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 04:05:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Memphis coach, fans call for new rule to apply (2.00 / 4)

One way to cope with tragedy is to use humor. Why do you think their were so many NASA jokes.

Really, its called satire. You should be angry at the MI and FL legislatures who created the mess and refuse to fix it.

But changing the rules halfway through, or accepting the results of an unfair and uncontested primaries is also unfair.

How about Clinton winning by 20+ points the rest of the way through so she can actually win it fairly?

Seriously, be honest, she has ran a lousy campaign so is grasping at straws to win. And if she ran such a lousy campaign to be losing to an inexperienced, fast talking, and untested newcomer, how do you think she can beat McCain?


by IowaMike on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 04:19:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Memphis coach, fans call for new rule to apply (none / 0)

okay, given a lot of those voters are male, I don't know that the phrase "rendered impotent" is one that would best make your case.


Like the nominee, don't like the nominee... Our nominee is still better than John McCain...
by JenKinFLA on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 04:26:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Memphis coach, fans call for new rule to apply (2.00 / 1)

That's a classic, Bob.

Although I have to admit, I just returned from a big lunch and nearly missed it.


by bookish on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:43:16 PM EST

Re: Memphis coach, fans call for new rule to apply (none / 0)

Nice


A useless "Community Organizer" from Pennsylvania as noted by Republicans, Rudy Giuliani and Sarah Palin
by hootie4170 on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:43:53 PM EST

I see a flaw here. (1.50 / 2)

Never use a basketball analogy as an argument to dismiss the sacred right to vote and have that vote COUNTED. The votes are legal, its just a matter if they will recognized or not by the elites at the DNC. I suspect they will.


by Scan on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 03:35:34 PM EST

'Sacred right' (2.00 / 2)

But caucuses don't count. At least that's what Mark Penn (since fired) and Howard Wolfson have said.


by Bob Johnson on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 04:01:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 'Sacred right' (2.00 / 1)

Oh damn, that would've been a good ad... Memphis claiming that free throw shooting wasn't a good indicator of basketball ability, or who passed the "national championship test" since they work differently. And that Memphis was really bad at them. Coincidentally. Of course.
by Rorgg on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 04:04:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I see a flaw here. (none / 0)

I posted a similar comment above before I read all of the comments.

I couldn't agree more!


by jaydub799 on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 04:08:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Don't forget that snark tag! n/t (2.00 / 1)


Never let the bullies win.
by SluggoJD on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 04:03:40 PM EST

Snark?! Nonsense! (2.00 / 1)

Calipari is a whiner!


by Bob Johnson on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 04:04:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

ha ha (1.50 / 2)

disenfranchising millions of Democratic voters is funny? I think it's funny that Obama went back on his word for a revote in MI and to seat FL delegates. Funny, as in something is wrong with the guy: he's a liar.


Fight for Democrats in Congress.
by owl06 on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 04:06:18 PM EST

He's a liar! (1.88 / 9)

Remember when he claimed to have been under sniper fire as a community organizer?

Neither do I!


by Bob Johnson on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 04:07:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

LOL! (none / 0)

Good one.


by ReillyDiefenbach on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 04:16:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ha ha (none / 0)

Glad to see other people find this diary, snarkish as it is intended to be, to be completely ignorant.

We're talking about a pretty big decision people have to make here ladies and gentlemen.  George Bush is going to be gone soon and we need to move the U.S. quickly beyond this horrible presidency.

Laughing about people who paid for an election with their tax dollars, participated in that election, and were told BY A POLITICAL PARTY that they, and all of their fellow statesmen's, votes will not count.  

Yuck.


by jaydub799 on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 04:13:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Exactly! (2.00 / 1)

I bet Florida and Michigan delegations get seated at the convention. Want to bet me?


by Bob Johnson on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 04:16:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Exactly! (none / 0)

I'll bet you this: if their votes aren't allowed to count, and they're offered "seats" at the Convention, they won't take them.


by Trickster on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 04:40:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The delegations won't take the seats if offered? (2.00 / 1)

Really? Where do you get that?


by Bob Johnson on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 04:51:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The delegations (none / 0)

They're Democrats, aren't they?  That should say all that needs to be said about how they would feel about trading their vote for a convention seat.


by Trickster on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 05:06:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Want to bet? (none / 0)

If offered to be seated at the convention (which they will be) I will wager that nearly all will take their seats. More than 90%.


by Bob Johnson on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 05:10:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The delegations (none / 0)

You went from "won't" in your first comment to "should" your second . . . perhaps confusing these two concepts is part of the Clinton campaign's problem.


What is The October Protocol?
by Koan on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 05:45:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (none / 0)

Who wants to be a delegate who was not elected?  One who was just chosen based on some "fair" compromise?


by jaydub799 on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 05:08:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Same thing I noted to Trickster, above: (2.00 / 1)

If offered to be seated at the convention (which they will be) I will wager that nearly all will take their seats. More than 90%.


by Bob Johnson on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 05:23:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Too bad they didn't follow, you know, (none / 0)

the "rules."  Maybe next time they'll figure it out.


by ReillyDiefenbach on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 04:18:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ha ha (2.00 / 3)

you make it sound like they were told that AFTER they voted...

We knew the decision going in.  And seriously, where was this chorus of voices when the decision was being made?  We watched it unfold...  where were you people?


Like the nominee, don't like the nominee... Our nominee is still better than John McCain...
by JenKinFLA on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 04:28:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ha ha (none / 0)

You can read into my comments how ever you like, but I certainly do not imply that this decision was made after the elections.


by jaydub799 on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 04:32:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Where were the Clinton camp complaints about... (2.00 / 2)

... Florida and Michigan when all candidates were agreeing on the DNC sanctions? Or where were the efforts by the Clinton camp before the states moved to urge them not to jump the gun?

Why all the complaining after the fact?


by Bob Johnson on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 04:35:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Snark is one thing (none / 0)

Not a terribly good thing, but it beats dishonesty, as in your statement "when all candidates were agreeing on the DNC sanctions."

Never happened.  Not even close.  In fact, no candidates agreed on those sanctions.  And they still haven't.


by Trickster on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 04:42:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Never happened? (none / 0)

Did Camp Clinton protest the DNC actions at the time?


by Bob Johnson on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 04:46:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Never happened? (none / 0)

First, what on earth does that have to do with your claim?  I want you to come right out and say so if you're trying to stand on "silence is agreement."

Secondly, at what time?  When the rules were passed?  When Florida was stripped?  When Michigan was stripped?

I don't know what the candidates said when the rules were passed.  I'm fairly certain that both the Obama and Clinton campaigns issued carefully non-committal statements when the two states were stripped.  As was obvious to anyone with a brain in their head, each candidate envisioned a future where s/he was in position to win that state and could make a play to that state's voters by calling for their delegations to be restored.

Well, Clinton turned out to be that candidate.  You have every right to find truthful arguments to put forth to make that look as if, somehow, it was a bad act, but what I have mainly seen have been lies, e.g.,:

- Hillary wrote the rules about who would be seated

  • All the candidates promised the delegates wouldn't be seated
  • Hillary promised the delegates wouldn't be seated
  • The DNC asked the candidates to agree that the delegates wouldn't be seated
  • The pledge says the delegates wouldn't be seated
  • Hillary said on a radio show that the delegates shouldn't be seated
  • Hillary's trying to unilaterally change the rules
  • Hillary changed her position on delegate-seating

None of these statements--and I feel like I'm still missing a few of the false, lame excuses--are anywhere near being true.


by Trickster on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 04:56:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

C'mon... (2.00 / 3)

Clinton Defends Michigan Ballot Stand

Clinton says of Michigan in this article:

"It's clear, this election they're having is not going to count for anything," Clinton said Thursday during an interview on New Hampshire Public Radio's call-in program, "The Exchange."

...

Speaking in the first primary state, Clinton said she understands concerns about her refusal. Rivals Barack Obama, John Edwards, Bill Richardson and Joe Biden took their names off Michigan's Jan. 15 primary ballot this week, and Michigan's hope for nominating clout all but evaporated.

Clinton's comment reflects an optimism she will win her party's nomination to face the Republican nominee in November 2008. She said any snub to Michigan could hurt her _ and all Democrats' _ chances to defeat the Republicans there.

She was only contesting Michigan because she was sure she was going to be the nominee and she didn't want her Michigan chances to be harmed in the general. But she said herself she knew the votes wouldn't count.

And this...

The Democratic presidential candidates already had pledged not to campaign in Michigan because the state had broken Democratic National Committee rules by scheduling its primary ahead of Feb. 5. The rules ban states from holding their 2008 contests before Feb. 5, except Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina.

She makes clear she knew the rules. And she knew the votes wouldn't count. Like Calipari in my satiric diary, now she's trying to change the rules after the fact.


by Bob Johnson on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 05:06:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Is that all you've got? (none / 0)

Didn't you notice I had already listed that in my list of lies?

OK, read her sentence to yourself - v-e-r-y s-l-o-w-l-y, word for word.

Which words signify intent?
Which words signify agreement?

I'll tell you which words - none of the words.  In fact, the words "it's clear," unequivocally signal that the sentence is about perception, in this case perception of a current state of affairs.

If she had wished to say she agreed with that state of affairs, she could've said so.  She didn't.

If she had wished to promise that she would stand up for keeping affairs that way, she could've promised that.  She didn't.

We're not talking about a grand heralded proclamation, the wording of her platform, or a statement in a high-profile speech.  It was an answer to a question on a radio interview.  You can't read into those words anything beyond what is there.


by Trickster on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 05:11:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Oh, so now it's about what she (2.00 / 3)

... meant, not what she said.

She said:

"It's clear, this election they're having is not going to count for anything."

So you're now suggesting that even though she said that, it doesn't mean she understood that the election in Michigan wouldn't count?

Is that it?


by Bob Johnson on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 05:18:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Back up, hoss (none / 0)

We're talking about your statement "when all candidates were agreeing on the DNC sanctions."  I may have wandered a bit wide afield on an answer or two, but let's don't forget what we're really talking about.

I see no support at all in that radio interview snippet for your assertion that "all candidates" or even Clinton "agree[d] on the DNC sanctions."

As for going beyond that statement into exactly how many angels danced on the head of Sen. Clinton's interview answer, I think that infinite parsing of one-time unplanned statements is a fool's game that proves nothing about the real world.


by Trickster on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 05:37:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Dodge. (2.00 / 2)

She said that Michigan "clearly" would not count. Now, she wants to count it. It's as simple as that.

And, yes, she is directly contradicting herself.


by Bob Johnson on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 05:40:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dodge. (none / 0)

So I take this as signifying that you're no longer claiming that your statement about all the candidates agreeing is true.  


by Trickster on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 06:30:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

She says Michigan won't count. (none / 0)

I don't see her saying Michigan should count. She only said that after it was clear she was losing the race for the nomination.

Prior to her getting her rear end handed to her throughout February, she said Michigan would not count.


by Bob Johnson on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 08:35:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Never happened? (none / 0)

From a rather prescient Salon article by Walter Shapiro:

The DNC, as it does every presidential cycle, voted in mid-2006 to give special permission to certain small states to hold early caucuses and primaries. This time around the winning states were the traditional Iowa and New Hampshire, plus South Carolina (first moved to the front row in 2004) and Nevada (the new state on the early calendar). The DNC's rationale was compelling: Small states require personal campaigning rather than airport rallies, and they prevent politics from totally degenerating into a contest of who has the most money for TV ads. With the exception of the kerfuffle over caucus locations in Nevada, the early states did their job well in giving a fair look to the Democratic field before narrowing it down to Clinton, Obama and Edwards.

No other state, under the DNC's regulations, could hold a primary or caucus before Feb. 5. But last year, first Florida and then Michigan defiantly scheduled their 2008 primaries in January. This queue jumping not only undermined the special status of the four small states, but it also meant unfairly squeezing ahead of the throng of 22 states that had slated primaries and caucuses for Feb. 5.

The abuse was so flagrant that not only did the DNC play tough guy (stripping Michigan and Florida of all their convention delegates), but the party chairs in the four small front-of-the-pack states pressured the candidates into signing a pledge not to campaign in the two outlaw primaries. Obama and Edwards, in fact, even took their names off the Jan. 15 Michigan primary ballot in which Clinton beat "uncommitted" by a 55-to-40 percent margin.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/0 1/30/hillary/


by bookish on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 03:41:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

And I nearly missed this one (none / 0)

from Gail Collins. That's a pretty unequivocal characterization from a well-respected columnist at a paper that endorsed Clinton.

Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Barack Obama have all vowed to honor the Democratic National Committee rule that only New Hampshire, Iowa, South Carolina and Nevada can hold primaries before Feb. 5. At the urging of the Democratic chairs of the four firsties, they signed a pact promising not to campaign in any state that tries to break into the front of the line.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/opinio n/27collins.html?hp


by bookish on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 03:55:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Snark is one thing (none / 0)

They signed the agreement that said that anyone going before the proposed date would be stripped of all delegates. That's agreeing in my book...


If you are not voting Obama, please let me know so I can replace your sorry ass with another new voter.
by Darknesse on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:56:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Huh? (none / 0)

Huh? Which agreement? The basic DNC rules say that the normal 'punishment' for what Florida did is loss of HALF delegates. Brazile made it ALL delegates by using/abusing a personal discretion option.


by 1950democrat on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 01:23:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Where were the Clinton camp (none / 0)

I, personally, am "COMPLAINING" because I feel that my own vote was rendered useless.

There hasn't been a nomination battle this heated in a long time (if ever).  The DNC did not fully think out the consequences of these kind of actions against states because they figured that, like most years, the nominee would be the overwhelming, consensus choice and MI and FL wouldn't matter.

Well the battle is tight, and MI and FL MUST have their voices heard.  The sanctions imposed are absolutely unacceptable, and I bet they will never be employed again without a lot of thought.


by jaydub799 on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 04:47:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Where were the Clinton camp objections to the (2.00 / 3)

... DNC sanctions at the time the sanctions were put in place?

Did the Clinton camp ask Michigan party officials to not move their primary and subject themselves to the threatened sanctions?


by Bob Johnson on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 04:50:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Why do you ask? (none / 0)

What rule says they had to react instantly?

Was there some kind of time pressure such that if they didn't act instantly something would change?

Why not wait until the point in the primary schedule where the spotlight would be on MI and/or FL so as to get more publicity for your proclamation?

Why should she alone be forced to take time off from campaigning in IA and NH to go haring around the country trying to change rules in other states that were going later in the process?

What was the Obama camp's reaction to passage of the rules?

Do you really and truly think that Clinton, an outsider, should've imposed herself into a Michigan legislative process?  Is that the way they usually do it in your state, have people from other states come into the statehouse and tell the legislature what to do?


by Trickster on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 05:00:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

See my response to you, upthread. (2.00 / 2)

Clinton states:

"It's clear, this election they're having is not going to count for anything," Clinton said Thursday during an interview on New Hampshire Public Radio's call-in program, "The Exchange."

It doesn't get much more clear than that.

She's playing the Calipari role from my satiric piece.


by Bob Johnson on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 05:09:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I notice you're totally avoiding these questions (none / 0)

On that other subject, I responded to you upthead as well.


by Trickster on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 05:14:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why do you ask? (2.00 / 2)

Trickster, you're simply ignoring the fact that many people stayed home or participatedin the Republican primaries by virtue of the fact that they were told their votes would not count (and there was no conflicting message from any of the candidates).  The results of those primaries are grossly and irrevocably flawed.  Here is one study that attempts to show the impact that this message had on the electorate:

http://www.dcourage.com/Nini%20-%20Probl em%20with%20Existing%20FL%20and%20MI%20P rimaries.pdf

So, yes, presumably there is a correlation between the message set forth by the DNC and the candidates' failure to oppose that message in any significant way prior to those primaries.  Retroactively validating these seriously flawed results makes them no less flawed.


by rfahey22 on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 05:54:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why do you ask? (1.00 / 2)

Too bad Obama fears the voters of MI and Fl and blocked all efforts to revote. What a weak coward.


by Newport News Dem on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:01:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why do you ask? (none / 0)

No. That is simply untrue. He blocked all revotes that would only allow the previous participants to vote, which is the only thing the Clinton campaign would agree to..


If you are not voting Obama, please let me k