MyDD :: Barack Obama Asks Credentials Committee To Seat MI & FL At Full Voting Strength

Barack Obama Asks Credentials Committee To Seat MI & FL At Full Voting Strength

by Todd Beeton, Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 05:46:19 PM EST

Ben Smith has Obama's letter to the DNC Credentials Committee:

August 3, 2008

Hon. Alexis Herman, Co-Chair
James Roosevelt, Jr., Co-Chair
Eliseo Roques-Arroyo, Co-Chair

Dear Credentials Committee Chairs:

In just a few weeks, our Party will convene in Denver for our National Convention. This will be an historic event that will showcase our vision for changing the direction of our country.

The delegates and alternates who gather on Monday, August 25 will reflect the talent, energy and rich diversity of our Democratic Party. The delegates will come from all 56 states and territories. As these delegates go about the important business of the Convention, I believe Party unity calls for the delegates from Florida and Michigan to be able to participate fully alongside the delegates from the other states and territories. Accordingly, I ask that the Credentials Committee, when it meets on August 24 to approve the delegates for the National Convention, pass a resolution that would entitle each delegate from Florida and Michigan to cast a full vote.

As a candidate for the nomination, I supported the DNC's efforts to establish and enforce a schedule for primaries and caucuses that would broaden the opportunity for Democrats from all regions of the country and all backgrounds and walks of life to have a meaningful voice. An unprecedented number of voters participated in our Democratic nominating process. We all owe a debt of gratitude to Governor Dean for his principled leadership during this long and challenging process.

As we prepare to come together in Denver, however, we must be - and will be - united in our determination to change the course of our nation. To that end, Democrats in Florida and Michigan must know that they are full partners and colleagues in our historic mission to reshape Washington and lead our country in a new direction.

With warmest personal regards,

Barack Obama

No surprise here. As Matt at DemConWatch says:

We always knew this would eventually happen.

The seating of FL & MI delegates was only an issue vis a vis the Rules and Bylaws Committee to the extent that it impacted the race for the nomination; now that we have a presumptive nominee, the dispute is mute. Hillary Clinton would have done the same thing were she the presumptive nominee and FL & MI left the Rules & Bylaws Committee with less than full votes at the convention. The irony of Clinton's fight for the full seating of Michigan and Florida back in the spring was that it was only an issue because she stayed in the race. Had she dropped out -- not that I was advocating for that, but if she had -- it would not have been an issue at all. The fate of Michigan's and Florida's delegates was only in dispute because she fought through to the end of the primary process. So, I don't really understand people's criticism of Barack Obama for this. This is really a non-controversy. Can someone explain the problem with this move?

Tags: 2008 presidential election, barack obama, michigan, florida, democratic convention (all tags)

Permalink :: 137 Comments :: Post a Comment

Good (2.00 / 3)

We all knew that this was coming. We've also now done exactly what the Republicans did. We used the sanctions to avoid polluting the process, but we've moved beyond the sanctions to save face. They did their work.

Bill Clinton could never have been nominated in 1992 if states like Florida had played games like this. Anybody want to imagine what Tsongas would have been like as our nominee?

Having smaller states go first gives second tier candidates a real chance.

by Reaper0Bot0 on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 05:48:20 PM EST

Facts (2.00 / 4)

Lol play games? Perhaps you need to get your facts right regarding how the dates were switched earlier for both Michigan and Florida. Both their circumstances are different. Rather than bringing up old bad blood, the entire nomination process need to be revamped with caucusing being the first to get phase out. If small states wants to go first, fine, but the conduct of the nomination process have to be fair and democratic. Caucusing is not. And we have to let every small states have their share of going first, not reserving those spots for Iowa and NH.

But all these will not happen as the party heads themselves would want the status quo to remain so they could remain omnipotent with their influence. This goes the same to the activists who worked hard so they could also have those influences.

Why this is a bad move is because there are still so many people who are very emotionally attached to Hillary and if you want to remind them every month about what Hillary did right but still lost for various reasons, you will never get those votes. In fact, people listen to what they want to hear. This goes the same with polling. There are so many lifelong democrats whom i know that have not forgiven the DNC for 'awarding' the nomination to Obama. Keep on reminding them that fact will only irritate those voters. And more importantly this deep sense of attachment is there because so many have invested in both Clinton and Obama as both of their candidacy are historic. It's like gambling soccer, if you don't put money in, whoever wins or loses does not matter, but once you give even the slightest amount in, you are investing your heart and soul in that race.

P.S. For those of you who wants to argue or qq over DNC giving the nomination to Obama, just remember this, superdelegates gave Obama enough numbers to secure the nomination, but that cannot be done for Clinton because it would be stealing the nomination from Obama. This narrative I hope will enlighten many of you to why many of us are not in the donkeywagon yet.

by stevent on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 06:12:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Facts (2.00 / 3)

This isn't complicated.

If the superdelegates had voted for the candidate who had fewer pledged delegates then they would have "stolen" the election away from the candidate who had performed best within the system that existed. The fact that the superdelegates ratified Barack Obama's nomination does not mean that what they did is the same as what they would have done in order to secure the nomination for Senator Clinton.

Barack Obama ran the better race. Barack Obama is also building the infrastructure in very red states that will help our downticket Dems. As Mayor Begich who he'd rather have on the ticket. Those field offices Obama opened in Alaska are going to help us take that Senate seat.

There were too many good reasons for the superdelegates to ratify the decision the voters had already made. And yes, I know what you're going to say in response to that.

by Reaper0Bot0 on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 06:16:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Facts (2.00 / 1)

Don't even bother. People who think the nomination was "stolen" are operating under the assumption that it was owed to someone in the first place and that a slick newcomer smooth talked the young people using sexism, the race card, etc, into (etc etc etc, blah blah blah).

by Dale Johnson 007 on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 06:52:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Give me a break (1.57 / 7)

Women know better.

We know we have to work twice as hard to get half as much. It was NEVER a given for women that Hillary would win and no one ever thought it was owed to anyone. That was Axlerod's dirty rovian spin game and the kids all fell for it.

He used sexism, ageism and made "ambition" a dirty word (how dare a woman be ambitious). And when she mocked it (as women do because we all have been insulted for daring to be ambitious) she was called a racist, a b*tch and everything else in the book.

So it is no surprise to me and 18 million others that cheating after the fact, during and before has become the MO....only you call it all "no big deal."

by Jjc2008 on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 08:12:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Give me a break (2.00 / 4)

We know we have to work twice as hard to get half as much. It was NEVER a given for women that Hillary would win and no one ever thought it was owed to anyone. That was Axlerod's dirty rovian spin game and the kids all fell for it.

Including Hillary Clinton? She said she'd have the nomination wrapped up by Super Tuesday.

The rest of your piece is absolute twaddle. On what planet is the most well-connected woman on the planet an underdog against an African American? How many African American governors and Senators are there? Would Hillary Clinton be in this position - a former first lady later elected Senator - if she were black? Of course not.

When you start out making the "slippery slope" argument, where do you draw the line?

by Jess81 on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 09:22:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The problem with phasing out... (none / 0)

...caucusing is that caucuses are cheaper to run and primaries have to be run through the state. So you are spending more money (and the state's money) to determine the nominee of a private organization.

I think caucuses can be reformed (like keep a popular vote count at each stage so you can have a solid PV metric).

Visiting the hopium dens proudly since 2007.

by AZphilosopher on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 03:22:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Good (2.00 / 1)

What will give tier candidates a real chance is a national primary with IRV. Any variation of the current rigged jury system will only result in more of the same.

by Glaurung on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 06:51:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Good (none / 0)

I assume you meant to say 2nd tier candidates. If so, I'd like to know how on earth a single national primary would favor anyone but the person with the largest name recognition.

by bottl4 on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 10:34:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Good (none / 0)

Because 2nd tier candidates would still be on the ballot come election day. By the time I got to vote this year my choices had already been culled by voters in the puny states.

Make it simple. Make it direct. Make it equal and fair. Make it democratic.

by Glaurung on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 11:11:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Barack Obama Asks Credentials Committee To Sea (2.00 / 1)

now that we have a presumptive nominee, the dispute is mute.

If it was mute, your post would be a blank screen. In the words of Jesse Jackson, the question is moot. (PS: watch this video)

"It's like a cow's opinion. It's a moo point." --Joey

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 06:06:26 PM EST

The problem: (none / 0)

I cast my primary vote for an uncommitted delegation, out of solidarity. So, this invalidates my grand gesture.

Yes, I'm aware there's a possible misogynist reading of the myth. Sorry.

by Endymion on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 06:09:40 PM EST

Re: The problem: (none / 0)

It's going to be the exact same delegation either way. The only issue is whether the people in that delegation will get to cast one vote apiece, or one-half of a vote.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 06:12:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Barack Obama (2.00 / 1)

FL and MI needs to be punished. I say keep the FL and MI delegations as is. I'm a former Clinton supporter but these two states needs to be made an example of.

Restore America's Strength.

by RJEvans on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 06:09:42 PM EST

Re: Barack Obama (2.00 / 3)

They have been - it was all about their political influence, which was diminished. It doesn't punish them any less by seating at full strength.

by rfahey22 on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 06:13:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

We were (2.00 / 2)

we were ignored, and Clinton got no momentum out of winning either state - which was the correct outcome as far as I am concerned.

What still bothers me is the failure to punish Iowa and New Hampshire. We need small states to go first - but they should be rotated.

by fladem on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 06:15:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: We were (2.00 / 1)

I agree 100%!

by Reaper0Bot0 on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 06:17:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Iowa and New Hampshire (none / 0)

got waivers to go before the date, and so there was no reason to punish then.

New Mexico politics from the local perspective.

by fbihop on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 07:55:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Barack Obama (none / 0)

spankings!

bare bottoms!

by wrb on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 06:22:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Barack Obama Asks Credentials Committee (none / 0)

It's like some people blocked the Primary Wars out of their heads. Carl freakin' Levin said that this would happen during the televised R&B Committee meeting at the end of May. Also, McCain will seat the full delegation.

by rfahey22 on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 06:11:18 PM EST

No Problem Here (2.00 / 2)

I have no problem with it. I suspect those who are making a big fuss over it now are just nit picking.

"I don't oppose all wars...what I do oppose, is a dumb war" ~ Barack Obama

by BlueDiamond on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 06:14:09 PM EST

I was going to ask... (2.00 / 2)

"Who would complain about this?"

And then I read the comments -- bitter, deadend, McPumas, that's who.

by Glaurung on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 06:54:27 PM EST

I'm curious (2.00 / 4)

Is there an acronym for the many Obama supporters who viciously sliced and diced Hillary, abused her supporters, and threatened not to vote for her if she won the nomination during the primary?

by phoenixdreamz on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 07:12:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm curious (2.00 / 2)

Nooooooo..........they said they would not vote for her if she was the nominee but had received fewer pledged delegates. Please be intellectually honest and remember what people actually said, not what you'd prefer they'd said since it would make your argument stronger.

by Reaper0Bot0 on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 07:19:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I am an honest person (2.00 / 2)

and I repeated what was thrown about like confetti, precisely. Very few, if any, bothered to qualify their comment, and when they did, more often than not, it was paired with "under any circumstances".

by phoenixdreamz on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 07:26:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I am an honest person (2.00 / 1)

The key word you used is, WAS. Meaning in the past. Dude the primaries are OVER why do you insist on going back?

by venician on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 07:33:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I asked a question (2.00 / 1)

because I'm sick of reading demeaning and/or negative comments like the original one I responded to. So many bloggers who always seem to be online and active spend the majority of their time policing, criticizing, and correcting, just like during the primaries. It's not me who insists on going back, rather the others refuse to leave it behind. Don't concern yourself. I haven't commented in awhile till today, and will now go back to getting lost again.

by phoenixdreamz on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 07:47:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I asked a question (none / 0)

phoenixdreamz, are you going to vote for McCain in November, as Shazone will?

by JoeW on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 07:51:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I asked a question (none / 0)

I would not vote for McCain under any circumstances. I have no clue who or what "Shazone" is.

by phoenixdreamz on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 06:40:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Oh please (1.83 / 6)

you need to be honest.
One only had to spend a few minutes on Huffobama or the dailyObama to see the abuse of Hillary supporters. We were called racist if we challenged anything Obama said, we were calle "old women who needed to get out of the way..."
And what they said about a woman whose entire life has been devoted to making life better for women, for the poor, for minorities not getting a fair break, still sickens me.

Am I surprised that the crowd that screeched "rules are rules" are now saying, "no big deal?" NO? Sanctimony and hypocrisy are the hall marks of that campaign.

by Jjc2008 on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 07:54:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh please (2.00 / 2)

Really? Then why on earth would you spend any time there? That's INCREDIBLY silly of you.

When you start out making the "slippery slope" argument, where do you draw the line?

by Jess81 on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 09:35:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm curious (none / 0)

Is there an acronym for the many Obama supporters...

W.I.N.N.E.R.S

Sorry, could resist. ;-)

Obama/Adam West or Bruce Campbell or Lucy Lawless '08

by Purple with Green Stipes and Pink Polka Dots Dem on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 10:32:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The next step in this process is.... (2.00 / 1)

for Hillary to instruct her delegates to vote for Obama on the first ballot. I expect a deal to that effect has already been made.

by Glaurung on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 06:56:48 PM EST

No ceremonial ballot for the history books? (1.50 / 4)

Obama and his followers need total devotion, I guess.

by catfish2 on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 07:32:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm sure Hillary understands political reality... (2.00 / 1)

even if you don't.

Logic dictates that she has already made some kind of deal with Obama in exchange for instructing her delegates to vote for him. Maybe the keynote speech was what she bargained for -- or maybe that and more.

by Glaurung on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 07:43:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Clearly, Obama understands no such reality. (1.66 / 3)

He insists on poking people in the eye with moves like this. What he doesn't get is it will cost him votes in November.

by catfish2 on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 08:14:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Eh? (2.00 / 1)

Who exactly is he poking in the eye with this?

by protothad on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 08:47:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hillary supporters (1.50 / 2)

her run was historic. He of all people should understand that.

by catfish2 on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 08:58:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary supporters (2.00 / 1)

So it's poking Hillary supporters in the eye for him to request seating MI and FL at full strength rather than half strength even though she has the delegate advantage in both states?

Proud member of the Wikipedia Generation of American politics

by BishopRook on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 09:07:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary supporters (2.00 / 3)

Have you already forgotten the ridiculous grandstanding about the rules, and the "fair and balanced" (por Obama) that was reached after all that brouhaha? And now people are supposed to simply forget this? "Hey, we didn't really mean it, it was just for fun, of course all delegates will be seated. We don't really care about those lousy rules!"???

Hell, do y'all really don't notice how hypocritical this sounds, and how this reminds people of the same old same old dirty plays in politics?
How does this go together with the reformer image of Obama???

No way, no how, no McCain!

by Gray on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 09:41:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary supporters (none / 0)

Do you like chamomile tea? I do. It's very calming.

Obama/Adam West or Bruce Campbell or Lucy Lawless '08

by Purple with Green Stipes and Pink Polka Dots Dem on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 10:28:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary supporters (2.00 / 1)

I can sleep very well after I had some glasses of a purely biologically brew based on hops and malts, thank you.
:D

No way, no how, no McCain!

by Gray on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 10:41:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary supporters (none / 0)

One of my coworkers is teaching me to make beer next weekend. I'm pretty excited!

Obama/Adam West or Bruce Campbell or Lucy Lawless '08

by Purple with Green Stipes and Pink Polka Dots Dem on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 10:47:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary supporters (2.00 / 1)

Never tried that myself, but sure would like to, some day.

Btw, for an Open Left fan, wouldn't it be a good idea to brew an open source beer?
http://derivadow.com/2007/08/14/free-bee r-the-open-source-brew/

This gives "free as in beer" a total new meaning!
:-)

No way, no how, no McCain!

by Gray on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 10:55:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary supporters (none / 0)

As both a home brewer and an open source enthusiast, that link is much appreciated. :) Thanks!

by protothad on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 12:01:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Hypocritical? (none / 0)

Hell, do y'all really don't notice how hypocritical this sounds, and how this reminds people of the same old same old dirty plays in politics?
How does this go together with the reformer image of Obama???

This is hardly a suprising move. It is not the first time a state has been sanctioned for not following the primary rules, and not the first time a nominee has seated a sanctioned delegation in a symbolic symbol of party unity. Many many people (including me) predicted this is exactly what would happen. It was expected, and Obama would likely have gotten even more grief had he NOT done it... in fact I suspect he would have gotten grief from many of the same people who are giving himn grief for doing it. There is just no pleasing some people when they've gotten into their head to hate someone.

by protothad on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 11:25:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Is sho iz! (none / 0)

It's so fun to pretend what is as if it isn't. We'll remember in November.

by catfish2 on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 12:45:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is sho iz! (none / 0)

that's nice dear. Have a coca-cola.

When you start out making the "slippery slope" argument, where do you draw the line?

by Jess81 on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 02:04:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No ceremonial ballot for the history books? (none / 0)

I would imagine Hillary Clinton has already firmly established her place in the history books.

www.thingsyoungerthanmccain.com

by LandStander on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 08:19:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No ceremonial ballot for the history books? (2.00 / 1)

No! Hundreds - nay, thousands of years from now, when children are reading about Hillary Clinton in the history books, students will raise their hands and ask "yes teacher, but what was the official vote total at the Denver convention? Specifically of the Florida and Michigan delegations?"

And their little hearts will be broken when they learn that each delegate - both pledged and automatic - were to be counted at full strength, instead of at half strength as agreed upon by the Rules and Bylaws Committee. And they will turn to a life of crime and drugs.

The only way to prevent this is to vote for McCain.

When you start out making the "slippery slope" argument, where do you draw the line?

by Jess81 on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 09:50:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No ceremonial ballot for the history books? (none / 0)

While I think your comment is very funny, I unfortunately must pick a nit.

An "automatic delegate" is someone who has delegate status "automatically"--that is, it's another word for the Party Leader and Elected Official (PLEO) delegates. There are both pledged and unpledged PLEO delegates. And there are pledged and unpledged non-automatic delegates. So "pledged delegate" and "automatic delegate" are not opposites.

I don't know who came up with the idea of using the phrase "automatic delegate" to replace the phrase "superdelegate," but it was a very inaccurate choice, because in common parlance "superdelegate" means all the unpledged delegates.

This concludes today's lesson in arcane and unnecessarily complicated parliamentary representation systems. Tune in next week to learn the official names for all seven (yes, seven!) types of delegates at the Denver convention.

Proud member of the Wikipedia Generation of American politics

by BishopRook on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 12:33:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No ceremonial ballot for the history books? (none / 0)

Well the textbooks always get SOMETHING wrong.

New Mexico politics from the local perspective.

by fbihop on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 01:06:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No ceremonial ballot for the history books? (none / 0)

Okay: elected and automatic delegates.

And it was Harold Ickes who coined the phrase "automatic delegates", but I actually like it since it's more descriptive than superdelegates. By virtue of who they are, they have automatic votes on all issues brought before the floor.

When you start out making the "slippery slope" argument, where do you draw the line?

by Jess81 on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 02:03:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No ceremonial ballot for the history books? (none / 0)

I'm not a fan of the term "automatic delegates", I prefer "Superdelegates" because they are the least democratic of the whole process. Their vote actually counts more than the average Joe's.

Visiting the hopium dens proudly since 2007.

by AZphilosopher on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 03:36:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No ceremonial ballot for the history books? (2.00 / 1)

I prefer the term "removed from the process altogether sometime between 2008 and 2011" myself.

Proud member of the Wikipedia Generation of American politics

by BishopRook on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 08:26:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Amen! <nt> (none / 0)

Visiting the hopium dens proudly since 2007.

by AZphilosopher on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 10:05:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No ceremonial ballot for the history books? (2.00 / 1)

Obama and his followers need total devotion

I don't know about Obama, and the rest, but I'm sort of into that.

Obama/Adam West or Bruce Campbell or Lucy Lawless '08

by Purple with Green Stipes and Pink Polka Dots Dem on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 10:34:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Grammar Police, anyone? (none / 0)

"...the dispute is mute."

I'm amazed at how many times supposedly-savvy political types make this mistake -- the proper word is "moot," NOT "mute."

by JDWalley on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 07:16:04 PM EST

So he'll return all his MI delegates? (1.66 / 3)

He pandered to Iowa in removing his name from the Michigan ballot. Hillary took a risk in keeping her name on the Michigan ballot.

You want delegates? Keep your name on that ballot, kiddies.

No MI delegates for Barack.

by catfish2 on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 07:34:12 PM EST

Re: So he'll return all his MI delegates? (1.50 / 2)

You deadenders remind me of Confederates who could never accept that their cause was lost. Here's the news -- it's over. You lost. The South shall not rise again.

by Glaurung on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 07:46:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Message to children: cheat, and you win! (1.66 / 3)

Take your name OFF the Michigan ballot, and have your friends on the RBC make excuses for you and give you delegates anyway! Pander to Iowa, get the best of both worlds!

by catfish2 on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 08:01:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Message to children: cheat, and you win! (2.00 / 1)

If the rules had been followed, none of the MI delegates would count. Their primary was declared invalid when they jumped the schedule. But of course this has all been hashed over a million times, and even seating according to the 'vote' wouldn't have changed the outcome anyway, so this is not worth arguing over.

You have two choices in november. You either vote for the candidate that will continue the neocon agenda and run the country right into a second Great Depression, or you vote for the progressive candidate that agrees with Hillary Clinton on almost all of the major issues.

I assume I don't have to spell out which one is which.

Peace

by protothad on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 09:03:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

One candidate thinks Blackwater gets a bad rap (none / 0)

the other blasts excessive CEO pay and corn subsidies. Really tough to tell which one is the Democrat.

by catfish2 on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 12:47:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: One candidate thinks Blackwater gets a bad rap (none / 0)

Really? Maybe you should sit this one out.

When you start out making the "slippery slope" argument, where do you draw the line?

by Jess81 on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 02:04:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

And namecallers remind (1.50 / 2)

me of my years teaching middle school. What grade are you in now?

by Jjc2008 on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 08:16:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

my years teaching middle school (none / 0)

Probably as far as you got.

by Glaurung on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 11:14:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So he'll return all his MI delegates? (none / 0)

No soup for you!

by PSUdan on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 08:26:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

If it's a non-controversy (1.00 / 1)

why are you asking for an explanation?

So, I don't really understand people's criticism of Barack Obama for this. This is really a non-controversy. Can someone explain the problem with this move?

Right. You really want somebody to explain. NOT.

by catfish2 on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 07:36:30 PM EST

Re: If it's a non-controversy (2.00 / 2)

Fail, catfish2.

Back to Alegre's Pen for you!

by JoeW on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 07:52:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

He just doubled his bogus MI delegates (1.33 / 3)

What a nice guy.

by catfish2 on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 07:39:00 PM EST

Re: He just doubled his bogus MI delegates (2.00 / 2)

Some people don't need a separate comment for each sentence or thought they want to share with the rest of us. I applaud your unique approach.

by Reaper0Bot0 on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 07:47:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What a nice guy. (none / 0)

You can say that again!

by Glaurung on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 07:50:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

More bogus delegates for meee!!! (1.00 / 2)

I'm a hero :)

by catfish2 on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 08:01:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

if only you were (none / 0)

an hero.

by JJE on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 11:26:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: if only you were (none / 0)

lulz

by Skaje on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 02:13:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Now, what's this election about? (2.00 / 2)

Mr. Nice Guy 2008, or the President of the United States?

Making this a "likability" contest has led to some horrible results in the past. Remember that lots of people thought W would be a great guy to have a beer with, totally disregarding the known fact that he turns into some kind of American Werewolf under the influence of alcohol?

Imho it would be a good idea to concentrate on the qualifications of the candidate this time.

No way, no how, no McCain!

by Gray on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 09:33:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Now, what's this election about? (none / 0)

Qualifications? We hashed that all out in the primaries and Democrats decided Obama was more than qualified. The only people saying he isn't at this time are McPumas.

by Glaurung on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 11:18:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

He needs FL and MI and (1.75 / 4)

he knows it.

If he was ahead those voters would remain under the bus, being punished for things they had no control over.

by Jjc2008 on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 07:55:27 PM EST

Timing is odd (1.33 / 3)

Maybe new polls came out, or a new focus group. He changes on this and drilling and NASA all at the same time.

by catfish2 on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 08:02:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Timing is odd (none / 0)

If by "change" you mean "doing exactly what he said he was going to do two months ago."

Proud member of the Wikipedia Generation of American politics

by BishopRook on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 09:10:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: He needs FL and MI and (2.00 / 1)

You say that as if he's not ahead.

Proud member of the Wikipedia Generation of American politics

by BishopRook on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 09:10:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Ahead, like Gore and Kerry... (2.00 / 1)

...but somehow I expected a much more decisive lead this time...

No way, no how, no McCain!

by Gray on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 09:52:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ahead, like Gore and Kerry... (none / 0)

Your concern is noted.

Obama/Adam West or Bruce Campbell or Lucy Lawless '08

by Purple with Green Stipes and Pink Polka Dots Dem on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 10:36:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Thank you! (none / 0)

"Your concern is noted."
Great. So, after the usual s*** up, at least I can find comfort in telling you all: "I told you so!"
:D

No way, no how, no McCain!

by Gray on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 10:44:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thank you! (none / 0)

Don't mind me. I just a garden variety smart ass.

What was you told us, again?

Obama/Adam West or Bruce Campbell or Lucy Lawless '08

by Purple with Green Stipes and Pink Polka Dots Dem on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 10:49:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thank you! (none / 0)

"What was you told us, again?"

Damn! I thought you noted it?
Now what was it again, wait a moment...
..had something to do with irish butter, I guess...
...Kerrygold?...
...

No way, no how, no McCain!

by Gray on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 11:00:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thank you! (none / 0)

...irish...
...O'Bama?...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urMlVn1Zw Dg

No way, no how, no McCain!

by Gray on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 11:02:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

disenfranchised (2.00 / 4)

If florida and michigan would have been counted like they should have, Hillary would have won. barack disenfranchised the voters to win!

Obama is definitely the weakest nominee that Democrats have put up this decade.

by notBobDole on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 08:18:19 PM EST

fixt (2.00 / 1)

if florida and michigan would have been defrauded like they should have

by JJE on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 09:12:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Jerome, Todd, etc (1.33 / 3)

WHERE ARE YOU? How can we ever discuss anything substantive if these folks come here and crap all over every freaking thread?

Seriously. Moderate your own site. This is a frontpage thread...

by Reaper0Bot0 on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 08:27:09 PM EST

By discuss you mean (1.80 / 5)

go along with?

Some of us resent this and believe we have a right to do so. This is so phony. All the cries of "rules are rules" were lies. Down and dirty lies to keep Hillary from winning. It wasn't fair then; it isn't fair now.

What part of this don't you consider "discussing?" I am discussing this. It stinks of pandering and machinations of a political campaign that lied about "change".

by Jjc2008 on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 08:53:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Jerome, Todd, etc (1.33 / 3)

I'll chime in. I find your constant troll accusations childish and disruptive. You are damaging this site, and if you thought about it you would realize your behaviour does nothing but damage to Barack Obama. If you have something to say, say it. If you have a complaint about other users then contact the admins through the "Contact Us" link at the bottom of every page.

by souvarine on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 09:16:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Jerome, Todd, etc (none / 0)

You and zerosumgame only chime in to make nasty ad hominem comments about Obama, or Obama supporters. Seriously, I'm sure I've never seen one positive, constructive or interesting comment from either of you. You thrive on conflict, often working in gangs, and mean below the belt comments which distract from the substance.

As for this fake rule book pulling above - you're just trying to rile.

by duende on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 06:12:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Jerome, Todd, etc (2.00 / 2)

well what a shock, the HR abusers club crawls out to "defend" your constant whining.

by zerosumgame on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 10:05:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Problem? What Problem? (none / 0)

"Can someone explain the problem with this move?"

It's the hypocrisy, stupid.

No way, no how, no McCain!

by Gray on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 08:59:56 PM EST

Re: Problem? What Problem? (none / 0)

New politics eh? NIce to see you around Gray! You are missed!

by Iceblinkjm on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 09:01:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Thx! (2.00 / 3)

Well, since neither Edwards nor Clinton will be nominated, my interest in the election is decreasing, and I don't post so often anymore.

Ok, Obama is still a better alternative than McSame, but his recent performance isn't encouraging. He didn't really manage to reunite the party, because he didn't offer anything to the Hillary supporters. And I fear this Mi/Fl move, after all the grandstanding about the rules, will only make things worse. I understand he didn't have a real good choice, because seating only half of the delegates wouldn't be received well by the voters of those states, but still - this stinks.
This is simply dirty politics as usual, the end justifies the means, no ethical high ground here.
Where's that effing change???

No way, no how, no McCain!

by Gray on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 09:23:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thx! (none / 0)

You won't know or welcome change when it bites your ass.

by Glaurung on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 11:24:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Partly correct... (none / 0)

"You won't know or welcome change when it bites your ass."

While I can think of many changes, personally and politically, that I would really appreciate, 'change that bites my ass' certainly isn't among them, I have to admit...
:D

No way, no how, no McCain!

by Gray on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 06:04:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The problem is (none / 0)

Barack Obama did something. The usual idiots will always complain when he does something.

by JJE on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 09:42:00 PM EST

Barack Obama Asks Credentials Committee (2.00 / 1)

This the first time in 40 years my vote in the primary did not count. He won't be getting my vote in Nov.

by rodmar2 on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 09:42:29 PM EST

Re: Barack Obama Asks Credentials Committee (2.00 / 1)

What's deceptively clever about that is you are in a position to claim that no matter WHO won. But it's an old trick here: people who use it are believed to be McCain voters anyway since it makes absolutely no sense to blame the whole thing on one candidate, when they ALL agreed. And in Hillary Clinton's case, actually controlled the committee that put the sanctions in place.

But you had no way of knowing that. Nice try.

When you start out making the "slippery slope" argument, where do you draw the line?

by Jess81 on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 09:47:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Barack Obama Asks Credentials Committee (none / 0)

McCain has early stage dementia.

Obama/Adam West or Bruce Campbell or Lucy Lawless '08

by Purple with Green Stipes and Pink Polka Dots Dem on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 10:45:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Who do you think you're kidding, McTroll? (none / 0)

Neither Hillary nor Obama would have gotten your vote.

by Glaurung on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 11:20:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Sigh ... (none / 0)

Wow, I feel like it's May all over again. For some of the commenters on this thread, there is absolutely nothing that Obama could do that he would not be raked over the coals for. Except maybe name Clinton as VP, and even then I'm not sure that would be enough if he didn't do it in a grovelly enough manner.
This is depressingly repetitive.

by bottl4 on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 11:13:48 PM EST

This is depressingly repetitive. (none / 0)

Don't let them depress you -- that's what they're after. Insead, let them make you want to defeat them.

by Glaurung on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 11:22:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Doesn't sound like a winning strategy... (1.00 / 0)

"Insead, let them make you want to defeat them."
Uh, I thought the idea is to defeat McSame, not part of the Dem party???

No way, no how, no McCain!

by Gray on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 06:07:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

McPuma's and McTrolls are the same. (none / 0)

by Glaurung on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 02:10:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

My final comment on this thread... (none / 0)

To see the abject misery of the bitter deadenders over this act of unity on Obama's part MAKES MY DAY!

Thank you all.

by Glaurung on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 11:27:03 PM EST

Re: My final comment on this thread... (none / 0)

This thread was the straw that broke the camel's back. They've won. I'm out.

This is what a lack of meaningful moderation gets you, Jerome & Co.

by Reaper0Bot0 on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 12:02:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Don't be discourage (none / 0)

You know what's going on. Linfar has asked her heavies to target you for that diary last week. But we've got your back

by duende on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 06:14:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Barack Obama Asks Credentials Committee To Sea (2.00 / 1)

To seat them in full, puts Hillary within 58 pledged delegates of Obama. To seat MI as voted (uncommitted = uncommitted), Hillary is ahead by 18 pledged delegates.

FYI....

by nikkid on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 12:38:05 AM EST

Good job! (none / 0)

You've got it figured out!

Obama decided to do this fully knowing that Clinton would therefore win the nomination!

Quick, run to NoQuarter and announce the good news!

by PSUdan on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 08:32:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

It really says something about MyDD readers (none / 0)

that posts like this get 100+ comments of argument, while we can't muster up the energy to speak about the downballot races or other incredibly important things that are going on.

A real shame.

New Mexico politics from the local perspective.

by fbihop on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 01:08:59 AM EST

Re: It really says something about MyDD readers (none / 0)

Hey, no one would have known that anyone on this site was for/against the new FISA legislation but for the fact that Obama took a position on it. I can't tell whether the majority are just that myopic or actually are completely unprincipled.

by rfahey22 on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 02:04:15 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.