It's DEMOCRACY Stupid! (Updated)

One woman (or man) - one vote.

That's the rock-solid foundation our nation has stood upon for generations.

Voting rights are something Democrats have fought long and hard for when it comes to our brothers and sisters all over the country.  If someone tries to disenfranchise another citizen, Democrats are the first to do something about it.  We've fought long and hard to get rid of literacy tests, poll taxes, and dirty games at the polling stations when Republicans try to keep folks from voting.  Hillary's shown her commitment to this ideal all along, starting with her efforts to register voters in Texas some 35 years ago.

We were also the ones who fought to keep the vote-counting going down in Florida in 2000 when Katherine Harris tried to steal the election.  Several times we thought we'd headed her off at the pass only to have the Supreme Court scuttle our efforts.  We still spit her name whenever someone mentions her - she stole an election and for that we'll never forgive her.

So given this long history of our party's fight for voting rights, how is it that our own party leaders are now trying to disenfranchise millions of fellow-Democrats in Florida and Michigan (my home state)?

The campaign held one of their regular press conference calls this morning and I was fortunate enough to be at my desk at the time, so I listened in.  A big part of the call centered around what they hope to see happen when the Rules and Bylaws Committee (RBC) meets in DC on May 31st.  Here's a YouTube audio of the introductory remarks of the call...


(Thanks to No Quarter for getting this up on line)

So about those lawsuits mentioned in the above call... Several news outlets in Florida are covering a challenge from three superdelegates in the Sunshine State.  From today's Miami Herald...

Democrats file suit to seat Florida delegates

Florida's history of discrimination against African Americans should force the national Democratic Party to count all of the state's delegates at its national convention, a federal lawsuit filed Thursday claims.

The suit, filed by state Senate Democratic Leader Steve Geller and two other Democrats, claims that the federal Voting Rights Act prohibits the national party from stripping the state of its convention delegates.

The Civil Rights-era law requires the U.S. Justice Department to approve any significant voting change in Florida to make sure it doesn't disenfranchise minority voters. Geller argues that includes the Democratic National Committee's demand that Florida switch ''from a state-run primary to party-run caucus system'' to avoid losing its delegates.

''The purpose of this lawsuit is not to support one candidate over another; it's to enforce one of the most basic tenets of our democracy: Count the votes as they were cast,'' Geller said in announcing the lawsuit.

Now we're all clear on the initial reason the DNC handed down this severe and extreme punishment - Florida moved its primary up and when the Dems couldn't convince the Republican controlled state legislature to move it back, the DNC stripped them of their delegates.  All of them. Add to that the further "insult" that Florida refused to replace the votes of those 1.75 million Floridians with a caucus vote, and I'll bet the DNC powers-that-be (Donna Brazile being one of them) had steam comin' out of their ears.  But the thing is, they would have replaced the will of those 1.75 million voters with the wishes of caucus goers.  And they figured there would only be about 10 percent turnout in those caucuses. And there would have only been about 120 polling places.  These caucuses would have excluded the infirm, the elderly, anyone who works at the appointed time of the caucus, members of our military serving outside the state, parents with young children who can't get childcare... the list goes on and on and on gang.

Now I ask you... is this fair given the fact that those 1.75 million voters didn't have a say in when their primary was held in the first place?  This push to not count all the votes as they were cast... is this what Democrats now stand for????

In addition to Geller, who is an uncommitted super-delegate, plaintiffs include a Florida delegate for Hillary Clinton, Barbara Effman and one for Barack Obama, Percy Johnson.

snip

Geller believes the strongest argument Florida Democrats have in the legal challenge is how it relates to Section Five of the Voting Rights Act. The 1965 act was designed to protect blacks, primarily in southern states, from discrimination by banning literacy tests, poll taxes and unfair redistricting that had denied them access to the voting booths.

Another Florida website out of Tampa Bay also covered this lawsuit...

Fla. delegates sue DNC

Three Florida Democratic delegates to the party's presidential nominating convention have sued their national party in another attempt to get the state's Jan. 29 renegade primary recognized.

snip

Click here to read a letter sent today by Sen. Geller to the Democratic National Committee.

snip

"The (Democratic National Committee) believes that although nearly 1,750,000 of the more than 4,000,000 registered Florida Democrats voted in the Primary for one of the Democrats named on the ballot, the DNC - irrespective of the Timing Rule or any other rule, state law, or the U.S. Constitution - never has to count a vote cast in a presidential preference primary," the suit says.

snip

The state party used the Jan. 29 primary to allocate 185 delegates, with 105 pledged to Clinton, 67 backing Obama and 13 for John Edwards. There are 26 unpledged super delegates - elected officials, party executives and other bigwigs - that are also not recognized in the state's delegation.

That bolded bit above...?  Gang they had a nearly 50% turnout in a primary that people said wouldn't count.  Doesn't that tell you someing????

The article goes on to say that the state party has a hearing on May 31st with the DNC, in which they'll try to get the delegations seated at half strength.  Not an option in my book - that's like saying the citizens of Florida and Michigan (my home state) are only entitled to half the representation the rest of us enjoy and that's NOT what the Democratic party is all about.

Funny, the basis for this suit appears to be the disenfranchisement of minorities in Florida, and it relies on the Voting Rights Act - something that ALL Democrats can agree is one of the most important laws of the 20th century.  How anyone - especially a candidate for the Democratic Party's nomination in this presidential race - could argue against including all votes is beyond me.  

This whole thing raises an important question that I think we all need to consider here guys...  If BO manages to scuttle the seating of ALL of the delegates from these two vital swing states (in accordance with the express wishes of 2.3 million voters, then how exactly will he be able to claim he's the nominee of all of us?  This 48 plus two halfs state strategy just won't cut it with the voters in Michigan (my home state) and Florida guys.  Something that was so wisely pointed out on Anglachel's blog...

http://anglachelg.blogspot.com/2008/05/l egitimacy-not-unity.html

The increasing rejection of Obama by voters is a measure of his declining legitimacy. People who once thought they would gladly vote for him, like me, are now implacably opposed to him. He is no longer legitimate in our eyes. He has not sought legitimacy, which would mean facing up to oposition and allowing himself to be challenged, questioned, and probably be found wanting by some people, but has opted to pursue power at any price. Participating in and profiting from the media hatred of the Clintons, throwing out accusations of racism to try to forestall criticism and inflate AA vote counts, encouraging people to be "Obamacans" not Democrats, the "Democrat for a Day" strategy, engaging in intimidation and threats to extract caucus votes, aggressively trying to monopolize money specifically to silence alternative voices, and treating voters who do not choose him first with contempt.

Lack of legitimacy means relying on force to win. If you have to bully people to make them be quiet, you have lost legitimacy. If you have to remove votes from the contest in order to win, you have lost legitimacy.

snip

You gain legitimacy by being willing to risk power. This is the root cause of Obama's failure to be a unifying figure even as he preaches Unity.

Now part of her post references something that was posted over at the Confluence by River Daughter.  These wise women raise a relevant point gang.  Why not do the right thing and afford the voters of Michigan (my home state) and Florida full representation at our party's convention this summer?
Tuesday Bird Brains

Who is giving them permission to set aside their ethics and shuffle off the standards of acceptable behavior? Who is running the party that allows for the brutal suppression of one half by the unleashed id of the other half? I put the blame at the top of the party and Obama himself.

There is a price to be paid for such aggressive and insensitive behavior. People do have free will. The party belongs to the people who believe in its principles. Those principles of social justice, equality and shared responsibility can not be discarded for Change! without the party suffering some severe blows to its foundation. Going forward, the party becomes a fragile shell, easily blown to bits by outside forces because its foundations of support have been carelessly undermined.

Armando raised a great point in this morning's press call - something I would think BO and his camp would have already considered and run with...

If he goes along with the seating of ALL of the delegates from Florida and Michigan (my home state) it would certainly add a degree of legitimacy to his campaign should he prevail and win the nomination in August.  If he agreed to play fair re the 2.3 million voters who turned out in those primaries, then that would take away a huge point in Hillary's favor at the moment.  She won't be able to advocate for the rights of those voters, because they'll all be on the same page in this effort.  

I would have added one other point on that score...

If BO's so certain of winning the nomination then WHY is he so worried about seating all of those delegates?  Hmmmmm????

And then someone else on that conference call rolled in with the usual "what if you don't get all you want?  What will you do then?" bs.

Guys this is NOT a question of what Hillary wants.  It's about defining our party going forward.  Are we a party that pushes for FULL INCLUSION?

For voting rights?  

For an open and fair election?  

Because if we are then the only true course of action is to seat ALL of the delegates as apportioned and certified by the people of Florida and Michigan (my home state).  

Here's the thing gang... millions of people live in those two states and dammit 2.3 million people turned out to vote in these elections.  This was a record setting year in Florida despite the fact that people were telling them not to bother - that it wouldn't count.  They voted anyway because they wanted to exercise their constitutional rights as citizens of this great land.  They're our family and friends and they deserve the same rights as we do.  Not because someone granted them to them - but because they've earned it.

Real people.

My family.

My mom and step-dad.  My bother and his family.  My sisters and their families.  Uncles, aunts, cousins... real people who deserve a voice in this election.

I mean we ARE still DEMOCRATS - right????

As far as Florida and Michigan (my home state) go, the way each candidate handled everything in Michigan points to a very stark difference in their leadership style, and to their devotion to the idea that we all get an equal say in how we're governed...

Hillary stood before the voters in Michigan

Obama blew them off with his games and one-upsmanship in order to kiss up to the voters in IA, and it paid off for him.

She was also willing to stand before the voters in Michigan AGAIN - she was that confident that she could reach out to enough of them to earn their support and their vote.  

BO stood in the way of that re-vote - despite the fact that one of the proposals was to re-vote by a mail-in ballot (a plan or legislation that he actually co-sponsored as a Senator).  So you have to ask what exactly he's afraid of in Michigan.  Why won't he go before the voters there and ask them to support his run for the White House, especially if he's so confident of victory in Denver?

She's got the guts to stand up and ask for votes - he doesn't.

SHE'S on the side of full inclusion - he's talking about cutting their votes in half or splitting things down the middle (contrary to the expressed wishes of the voters).

Now which one sounds like a true leader and a DEMOCRAT?

Gang the renegade states have already been punished by the candidates refusal to campaign in their states.  Michigan's economy is crap so that hit them hard.  

It's time to move on and seat the delegates.

It's time Democrats started acting like Democrats again.

UPDATE

Wow. In looking through the comments here I've gotta say I'm shocked. Shocked to see a handful of angry people work so hard to disrupt a discussion about something that we Democrats have stood strong for over decades of hard work. Going back to the fight to gain suffrage for AAs and women.

To the distupters here I've got one thing to say... this is about voting rights and if you can't see that then there's no helping you.

Ok two things... If this is the change and hope your guy keeps blathering on about without really defining it - exclusion and disenfranchisement of millions of Americans then you can freaking keep it. I for one (and I'm sure I'm not alone in this) don't want any part in your struggle to keep the people of Michigan (my home state) and Florida out of this process.

You tell Michigan (my home state) and Florida to eff off then you're setting us up for certain failure come November.

As far as I'm concerned, your struggle centers around taking away a basic right in our society - the right to vote and be heard as we select our nect leader. This is NOT the Democratic party I grew up with and have worked so hard for since 1971.

You know what to do.

HELP HILLARY FIGHT ON - CONTRIBUTENOW!

Tags: 2008 elections, Democrats, DNC, Florida, Hillary Clinton, Michigan, president (all tags)

Comments

311 Comments

Re: It's DEMOCRACY Stupid!

Democrats include EVERY VOTE - according to the wishes of the voter.

by alegre 2008-05-22 06:05PM | 0 recs
Re: It's DEMOCRACY Stupid!

Anything less and that makes us no better than the Republicants.

by alegre 2008-05-22 06:05PM | 0 recs
Re: It's DEMOCRACY Stupid!

You know what to do - donate now - see sig line.

by alegre 2008-05-22 06:06PM | 0 recs
Re: It's DEMOCRACY Stupid!

Why did you feel the need to write the first four comments to your own diary?

by The Great Gatsby 2008-05-22 06:11PM | 0 recs
I hold a gun to alegre's head

and make her do it every damn day :p~

by phoenixdreamz 2008-05-22 06:35PM | 0 recs
anya109, why did you TR me?

Any excuse to back hand a Hillary supporter I guess. Whatever.

by phoenixdreamz 2008-05-23 07:37AM | 0 recs
Obama TRrolls

Par for the course. Look at the people who abused MyDD guidelines to troll or zero rate Alegre's comment:

"Democrats include EVERY VOTE - according to the wishes of the voter."

bobdoleisevil 1
vbdietz 1
Pat Flatley 1
Why Not 0
chicagovigilante 0
coffeetalk 1
LtWorf 1
RockvilleLiberal2 1
Deadalus 0

http://www.mydd.com/comments/2008/5/22/2 2423/6239/1?mode=alone;showrate=1#1

by KnowVox 2008-05-23 10:25AM | 0 recs
Re: It's DEMOCRACY Stupid!

So she can get more Recs from her fellow Kool-Aid guzzlers.

This is fantastic news for HILLARY!!!!!!!!!!!

by Deano963 2008-05-22 06:39PM | 0 recs
She wrote the first three.

If you're going to be childish, at least be accurate.

by psychodrew 2008-05-22 08:11PM | 0 recs
Re: She wrote the first three.

Hi.

1.  I will remember that asking simple questions like "Why did you post so many comments" is "childish".  Geez, why must I be so juvenile.

2.  Alegre posted three comments in one "thread" of replies (a reply to her reply to her original comment), plus another, unrelated comment.  This is true even if they appear to be more spread out now.

1+1+1+1=4

by The Great Gatsby 2008-05-22 08:17PM | 0 recs
You can't count, can you? Poor thing!

Or haven't you gotten to addition yet in grade school?

by CoyoteCreek 2008-05-23 06:23AM | 0 recs
Re: You can't count, can you? Poor thing!

Was it really necessary to type such a childish insult 12 hours after his post was made?

by map 2008-05-23 06:30AM | 0 recs
Just trying to point out possible

self-improvements for the little kid.

by CoyoteCreek 2008-05-23 07:17AM | 0 recs
Re: It's DEMOCRACY Stupid!

Considering how deeply she's in debt, maybe you need to make your sig line bigger.

Or sell you bike and your X-Box.

by BlueinColorado 2008-05-22 06:18PM | 0 recs
Re: It's DEMOCRACY Stupid!

Why do you always respond to your own post two times when you could just put all three one-liners in the same post?

by Deano963 2008-05-22 06:37PM | 0 recs
Re: It's DEMOCRACY Stupid!

Because then she'd only get the mojo for one post.  Why accept one post's mojo when you have three whole sentences, each of which deserves mojo on its own?

by mistersite 2008-05-22 06:39PM | 0 recs
Alegre was from Maryland at Daily Kos.

I guess she's from Michigan now; taking a leaf from Senator Clinton's book.

by bobdoleisevil 2008-05-22 07:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre was from Maryland at Daily Kos.

LOL.......In a couple weeks we'll discover that she spent part of her childhood in Billings and her summers camping out in Sioux(sp?) Falls.

by Deano963 2008-05-22 07:20PM | 0 recs
Michigan (my home state, too)

deserves to be counted as is - the same as Florida.

Hey Obamacots...what are you afraid of?

by CoyoteCreek 2008-05-23 06:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Michigan (my home state, too)

I fear insomnia.

by Black Anus 2008-05-23 08:29AM | 0 recs
Re: It's DEMOCRACY Stupid!

Really?

by nextgen 2008-05-22 06:46PM | 0 recs
Re: It's DEMOCRACY Stupid!

OUCH.

But that's not what Alegre said - who you gonna believe, Alegre or your lyin' eyes?

by grover738 2008-05-22 07:34PM | 0 recs
It's BURMA STYLE DEMOCRACY Stupid!

when only the most conniving candidate's name remained on the ballot in Michigan.

I'm sure a faux democrat (small d) like Alegre was thrilled to have a one candidate election in her state. No doubt she would approve of the recent election in Burma too.

Hillary's cynical self serving ploy in Michigan, and her repeated bald faced lies about leading in the popular vote should be enough to disqualify her from the presidency in a country sick and tired of lies emanating from the White House, a White House that also doesn't feel bound by rules.

by Lefty Coaster 2008-05-22 07:02PM | 0 recs
Re: OBAMA STYLE DEMOCRACY

It was hardly the voters' fault for getting caught in the middle of some political power play. And only a "conniving" politician would seriously believe you could exclude these two states from the final tally and expect to win them back in the general election.

Furthermore, only candidates without scruples would deliberately take their name off the Michigan ballot in order to invalidate the votes for his opponent.

by KnowVox 2008-05-22 07:28PM | 0 recs
Clinton's connivance shouldn't be rewarded in Mi.

Only a candidate without any scruples would deliberately leave their name on the Michigan ballot in order "win" an uncontested primary, they themself helped to strip of it's delegates the previous August.

by Lefty Coaster 2008-05-22 07:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's connivance shouldn't be rewarded

LOL! Thanks for troll rating me for telling the truth.

by KnowVox 2008-05-23 10:31AM | 0 recs
With your propaganda skills

and the passion you show defending a ONE CANDIDATE ELECTION, you could get a PR job working for the Generals in Burma.

by Lefty Coaster 2008-05-22 07:46PM | 0 recs
Re: With your propaganda skills

Um, Kucinich and Gravel were still on the ballot.  Kucinich has no scruples then, correct?

by alamedadem 2008-05-22 07:51PM | 0 recs
Re: With your propaganda skills

OK then. A ONE MAJOR CANDIDATE ELECTION, kind of like the one in Russia.

Oooh! 2,363 votes for Gravel.

Some dictators like to run against token candidates with little name reconition too. That doesn't make those elections democratic.

by Lefty Coaster 2008-05-22 08:13PM | 0 recs
Re: With your propaganda skills

Obama knew that Hillary would win in Michigan so he chose to take his name off the ballot both to delegitimize the outcome of the election and to curry favor with Iowa caucus goers, and Edwards and Biden followed suit for the same reasons. It's known as politics. It was a gambit and it probably paid off in Iowa. He also compounded the insult to Michiganders by using his legal staff to stonewall attempts to allow a revote.

There were four names still on the ballot: Dodd (who admittedly dropped out before the election), Gravel, Kucinich, and Clinton. But if you want to blame anyone for this mess, blame Obama, because he has been playing a particularly anti-democratic game of hardball politics throughout this primary season without any concern for how his tactics diminish the Democrats' chances of regaining the presidency in the GE.

by Inky 2008-05-23 06:56AM | 0 recs
Re: With your propaganda skills

OK then. A ONE MAJOR CANDIDATE ELECTION, kind of like the one in Russia.

Oooh! 2,363 votes for Gravel.

Some dictators like to run against token candidates with little name reconition too. That doesn't make those elections democratic.

by Lefty Coaster 2008-05-22 08:14PM | 0 recs
Re: With your propaganda skills

Kucinich tried to take his name off, but missed the deadline.

by DeskHack 2008-05-22 09:41PM | 0 recs
Re: With your propaganda skills

Uh, Kucinich didn't get his name off in time.  That's why he was on the ballot - a clerical error.

by rfahey22 2008-05-22 09:49PM | 0 recs
Re: OBAMA STYLE DEMOCRACY

A point of clarification then - the argument you're making, that only "candidates without scruples" took their name off the Michigan ballot back in October with the intention of invalidating a perceived Clinton victory, and that these unscrupulous candidates include not only Barack Obama, but Dennis Kucinich, Joe Biden, Bill Richardson, and John Edwards as well.  I don't know how you can make this argument about Edwards - if anything, Michigan is one of the three or four states in the entire country where he'd be expected to perform the best, and with Edwards on the ballot, I'm not sure a Clinton victory is even 50% likely.  Richardson and Biden, I think it's fair to say, were viewed back in October as tacitly supporting Clinton should their nominations fail, so ascribing their actions to a desire to invalidate Clinton's win, even in light of Richardson's eventual "defection," seems unlikely.  Do you really believe that Hillary Clinton and Chris Dodd were the only two candidates in this election with any scruples?

Link to Source

by robitude 2008-05-23 04:28AM | 0 recs
Re: It's DEMOCRACY Stupid!

by jedley 2008-05-22 10:18PM | 0 recs
Re: It's DEMOCRACY Stupid!

Democrats include EVERY VOTE - according to the wishes of the voter.

So you agree that Obama should receive a popular vote number in Michigan that aligns with his support  there (as indicated by exit polls)?  Those voters' clear wishes were to vote for Obama.

So you also agree that the caucus state estimates should be counted into the total?

Since your statement above indicates that you agree to both of these stipulations, I look forward to your no longer making the argument that Sen. Clinton is leading in the popular vote.  If Obama receives votes in MI, and caucus states are counted, he's ahead, and is likely to stay ahead through the end of the primaries/caucuses.

by mistersite 2008-05-22 06:11PM | 0 recs
Re: It's DEMOCRACY Stupid!

(golf clap)

You'll grow grey awaiting a response.

by fogiv 2008-05-22 06:39PM | 0 recs
**cricketts**

by notme54 2008-05-22 06:48PM | 0 recs
COUNT ALL THE VOTES!!!!!! (For Hillary.)

Agreeing with the others.

by luckymortal 2008-05-22 07:09PM | 0 recs
Re: It's DEMOCRACY Stupid!

I'm curious as to why that last clause was added.  It was almost as if the person realized that literally including every vote likely would mean that at least some of the uncommitted vote would have to be allocated to Obama, so she needed an escape clause.

by rfahey22 2008-05-22 07:12PM | 0 recs
Outstanding!


::clap::

::clap::

::clap::

by spacemanspiff 2008-05-22 07:12PM | 0 recs
Re: It's DEMOCRACY Stupid!

You should reply to your own thread here, six times in a row- then you can get six times the mojo!  

Who says we aren't learners?

by ihaveseenenough 2008-05-22 07:29PM | 0 recs
VEEP Stakes: Hillary vs Edwards

as of 10:30 PM EDT

► Edwards  71%

► Clinton  29%

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/5/22/1882 0/4706

Hillary loses the VeepStakes, even on this site.

by Al Rodgers 2008-05-22 06:26PM | 0 recs
Losing a MyDD popularity contest?

I'm sure she'll get over it.

by psychodrew 2008-05-22 06:31PM | 0 recs
is there anyone left?

by Al Rodgers 2008-05-22 06:32PM | 0 recs
Zing!

by spacemanspiff 2008-05-22 06:38PM | 0 recs
Re: VEEP Stakes: Hillary vs Edwards

Good.  I doubt want her on that ticket.  

It's beneath her.

by bellarose 2008-05-22 07:27PM | 0 recs
Re: VEEP Stakes: Hillary vs Edwards

Unless, of course, she's on the top.

by bellarose 2008-05-22 07:28PM | 0 recs
Phew - that's sexy!

by Al Rodgers 2008-05-22 08:45PM | 0 recs
SEXIST!

How dare you insinuate that women have sex!

by CrazyDrumGuy 2008-05-23 11:43AM | 0 recs
Re: VEEP Stakes: Hillary vs Edwards

What do you mean "even" here.   Hillary is MUCH more popular with voters than with bloggers.

by mdFriendofHillary 2008-05-23 02:31PM | 0 recs
Re: VEEP Stakes: Hillary vs Edwards

What do you mean "even" here.   Hillary is MUCH more popular with voters than with bloggers.

by mdFriendofHillary 2008-05-23 02:32PM | 0 recs
Have you forgotten...

That it was a near majority of Clinton supporters who voted to strip Florida and Michigan of their delegates last year? That it was Hillary Clinton herself who stated that Michigan wouldn't count for anything? That it was Hillary Clinton herself who signed the pledge stating that Michigan and Florida wouldn't count for anything?

Seriously, I've defended you and others here against the more vile and reprehensible attacks upon your persons. But why do you continue to push this kind of disingenuous and intellectually dishonest argument that has no ending other than civil war should you get your way?

Why?

by Yalin 2008-05-22 06:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Have you forgotten...

Sorry, Yalin, you'll be old and gray before you get an answer this. The best response, it seems, when you have no answer, is to ignore the question.

by vermontprog 2008-05-22 06:42PM | 0 recs
No, she hasn't forgotten....

but she DOES willfully block those inconvenient facts out of her mind since they dont fit in with her worldivew of a Hillary Clinton that is above reproach and can and never has done any wrong.

She bascially employs the Rovian tactic of repeating a lie over and over again until people just assume its true.

by Deano963 2008-05-22 06:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Have you forgotten...

Because they think they can drill it into our heads if they just yell loud enough and repeat it long enough.

by rfahey22 2008-05-22 06:43PM | 0 recs
I get it... you think we're stupid.

Why else would you expect us to buy the contorted case that what took place in Florida (and Michigan) were perfectly acceptable as fair elections and should be counted, even though everyone was told (and Hillary agreed) they would not count.

Sorry, telling people that the rules of the contest are one thing, and then changing them once they don't suit you, is not Democracy.  It's hypocrisy.

by Pragmatic Left 2008-05-22 07:56PM | 0 recs
This offer not good in Michigan

Where the "will of the voter" - as interpreted by the Clinton campaign - was that not one single person supported Barack Obama.

by TL 2008-05-23 03:22AM | 0 recs
Re: It's DEMOCRACY Stupid!

Yes every vote should count in elections that are free and fair.

Thee elections were neither, so some compromise is necessary in order to get a result that is fair to both parties.

It looks as though the Clinton's only see 100% of the vote in Michigan going to them as fair.

by telfishbackagain 2008-05-23 05:37AM | 0 recs
Re: It's DEMOCRACY Stupid!

so shy did your candidate block re-votes/

by anya109 2008-05-23 06:23AM | 0 recs
Re: It's DEMOCRACY Stupid!

Why did your candidate block re-votes?

by anya109 2008-05-23 06:24AM | 0 recs
He, like Hillary

was looking for tactical advantage.  Thing is, she blocked a caucus solution, which was pretty much the only won that would overcome the issues of letting those who had crossed over in the original invalidated primary to participate.  Hillary flatly said she would "not accept a caucus".  So while Obama could have done more to promote a revote, Hillary wasn't exactly accommodating either.

Her slogan said it all:  "She's in it to win it."  Which implies any argument, any tactic is worthy as long as it helps her win.  That's why she doesn't mind the contradictions between her "count every vote" rhetoric and her quotes from last October about everyone knowing MI wouldn't count.

Problem is, we are Democrats.  We have principles.  We can understand why the DNC imposed harsh penalties on calendar-jumping states, so that the process doesn't get even more protracted and out of hand next time.

We probably don't always nominate the best general election candidates, in terms of likelyhood of winning the general.  But we have a soft spot for those with a little integrity.  Hillary Clinton has some atoning to do if she wants another shot at it in four or eight years.

by corph 2008-05-23 07:17AM | 0 recs
Re: He, like Hillary

Yep, the problem is we're Democrats, and we believe in COUNTING EVERY VOTE. At least some democrats do.

by KnowVox 2008-05-23 10:36AM | 0 recs
Hillary doesn't.

I refer you to her quote from last October.

Presidential primaries are not American Idol.  There is no "franchise" or absolute right to vote in a primary.  Counting votes cast in invalidated elections only contaminates the whole process.  Obama is leading the popular vote held in states with genuine elections as defined by international standards.  Obama is leading in elected and super delegates.  Under current rules, he is 56 delegates from the nomination.

I'm sick of this stupid dishonest argument, and I don't even believe you're a Democrat.  You will find more kindred souls back at FreeRepublic.

by corph 2008-05-23 11:05AM | 0 recs
Re: It's DEMOCRACY Stupid!

Oh yea - see sig line - give money to our gal!

by alegre 2008-05-22 06:05PM | 0 recs
Re: It's DEMOCRACY Stupid!

She needs it folks!

Mark Penn hasn't had a Krispy Kreme in days!!

Help Hillary pay off her debt to Our Jabba!!

by BlueinColorado 2008-05-22 06:19PM | 0 recs
Re: It's DEMOCRACY Stupid!

Do you laugh hysterically at everything you write?

by psychodrew 2008-05-22 06:32PM | 0 recs
Re: It's DEMOCRACY Stupid!

No, I chuckle, soft and sardonic, with a villainous grin.

But I'm glad to hear you like my stuff.

(Pssst, Alegre: Ratings abuse! Why I'm simply shocked. Good thing you're one of The Armstrong Untouchables).

by BlueinColorado 2008-05-22 06:52PM | 0 recs
Ratings abuse?

Someone has thin skin.  Would you like a hug?

by psychodrew 2008-05-22 07:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Ratings abuse?

Thin skin? Moi? I am  merely defending the integrity of the ratings system against Alegre's abuses. I'm kinda like a member of the Justice League.

A hug? meh... got any beer?

by BlueinColorado 2008-05-22 08:12PM | 0 recs
How about a shot?

I have a bottle of North Korean liquor sitting on the shelf.

by psychodrew 2008-05-22 08:36PM | 0 recs
Re: It's DEMOCRACY Stupid!

not quite as loudly as we laugh at everything you write.

by RockvilleLiberal2 2008-05-22 06:59PM | 0 recs
Re: It's DEMOCRACY Stupid!

You remember me?  I didn't realize I was making such an impact.

by psychodrew 2008-05-22 07:31PM | 0 recs
Re: It's DEMOCRACY Stupid!
Speaking of Mark Penn.
Last month Hillary's campaign paid Mark Penn's company almost $3 million, 1 out of every 6 dollars the faithful Hillary donors sent to support their candidate.
by toyomama 2008-05-22 07:04PM | 0 recs
Re: It's DEMOCRACY Stupid!

Personally, I don't think he's done a very good job for her. But maybe Clinton folks are happy with his performance and would love to keep funding him.

by politicsmatters 2008-05-22 07:06PM | 0 recs
Re: It's DEMOCRACY Stupid!

yeesh, you'd almost think she plans to hire him again at some point in the future.

by BlueinColorado 2008-05-22 08:14PM | 0 recs
Re: It's DEMOCRACY Stupid!

It's good to see that kid's bike and videogame money was so well spent.

by matchles 2008-05-23 12:06AM | 0 recs
Why should anyone take you seriously

Can you take a look at the first comment on this diary and then explain why anyone should take you seriously ever again?

by map 2008-05-22 06:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Why should anyone take you seriously

Judging by the TR with no response, I'll take that to mean, "we shouldn't".

by map 2008-05-22 07:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Why should anyone take you seriously

The calling card of a coward.

by Lefty Coaster 2008-05-22 07:58PM | 0 recs
Re: It's DEMOCRACY Stupid!

Yes, pony up! Especially if you're from Indiana. If you don't pay now, you will later.

Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential campaign has moved on from Indiana, leaving behind $55,000 in unpaid bills for campaign events at Indiana University.

The debts are for appearances made by Clinton, former President Bill Clinton and their daughter, Chelsea, during March and April leading up to Indiana's May 6 primary.
Advertisement

Barack Obama's campaign, meanwhile, has already paid the $108,142 it owed IU for two Assembly Hall events -- a rally featuring the Illinois senator and an Obama-sponsored concert by Dave Matthews and Tim Reynolds.

by CrazyDrumGuy 2008-05-23 11:39AM | 0 recs
I agree.

It's time Democrats started acting like Democrats again.

This is why we shouldn't try to count contests we agreed wouldn't count after the fact, simply because we need the results as justification to stay in the larger contest while paying off our debts from our mismanaged campaigns.

by Firewall 2008-05-22 06:07PM | 0 recs
Re: I agree.

I am surprised democrats would be arguing for the disenfranchisement of voters based on " rules "

2.5 million folks voted and democrats are supposed to ignore that.

That would be the day the democratic party loses what it stands for.

Talk less of the fact that it is not an Americaan values.

by lori 2008-05-22 06:10PM | 0 recs
Re: I agree.

Yes, what are these "rules" people incessantly speak of?  Who made them up?  Why should we be expected to follow them?

Sounds like these "rules" might be just another subversive Obama plot!

by The Great Gatsby 2008-05-22 06:12PM | 0 recs
Well...

those "rules" are the itsy bitsy things that hold our government and nation together.

I know certain people view things like the Constitution as "quaint"...but we're better than that.

Aren't we?

by Firewall 2008-05-22 06:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Well...

There is a certain former president who lost his law license because he didn't think it was necessary to tell the truth under oath.  He thought he didn't need to follow the same rules that govern everyone else.

by politicsmatters 2008-05-22 06:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Well...

Alegre, You may troll rate me for this, but you know it's all true. And I didn't think he should have been impeached because he only lied about personal matters, not matters of state.

But it is true that Bill didn't need to make himself a lame duck so early because he couldn't come clean about his relationship with "that woman."  And it is true that he lost his law license for lying under oath in a sexual harassment suit.  

And I bet you support women's rights to bring those suits, right? Do you support defendants lying during discovery - I think not.

by politicsmatters 2008-05-22 06:33PM | 0 recs
Heres some mojo to make up for it...

While I can understand if some people think bringing up the Clinton impeachment was uncalled for, you were not ripping on a fellow MyDD user and were attempting to tie it to the 'rules' argument, so I hardly find it troll-rate worthy.

by protothad 2008-05-22 07:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Well...

Only if you think the rules of DNC represent the Constitution of the US .

One should be a little more apt .

I don't know what is a more fundamental value than counting the votes of millions of Americans who participate in representative democracy.

I don't think the DNC are that inept.

Your comment is absurd.

by lori 2008-05-22 06:21PM | 0 recs
So...

...basically, you agree that we should ignore the rules when they benefit our preferred candidates?

by Firewall 2008-05-22 06:22PM | 0 recs
Re: So...

I agree that the votes of millions of Americans should be counted regardless of who it may benefit or not because it is the only right thing to do.

The democratic party should not even be thinking of not counting votes of American citizens under any circumstance.

by lori 2008-05-22 06:26PM | 0 recs
Do you then believe

children should have been allowed to vote in the FL and MI primaries?

by Firewall 2008-05-22 06:27PM | 0 recs
Re: So...

Okay, so here's a solution: seat the pledged delegates at 1/2 vote.  Give all of MI's uncommitted delegates and votes to Obama (after all, everyone else who took their name off has endorsed him).  Don't seat any elected official or Dem Party superdelegates from those two states; they were the ones who made the decision, they should be the ones who suffer.

It's the perfect solution: The people have their say, their state still pays a penalty for jumping in line, and the people who made the decision get punished, setting a precedent very few governors or state legislatures will want to go against.

by mistersite 2008-05-22 06:31PM | 0 recs
Re: So...

but what about the voters who didn't vote because the media in both of their states said their vote would not count...is their vote not as important??

by hootie4170 2008-05-22 06:50PM | 0 recs
Re: So...

What was Clinton's position on MI and FL before their elections?

Why did she change her position afterwards?

If you can answer that honestly while showing clinton is being principled and consistent, then you'll have an argument.  Until then, all this crap about MI and FL is just after the fact whining by a sore loser who wants to change the rules in the middle of the game.

by soccerandpolitics 2008-05-22 07:30PM | 0 recs
The current penalty is too harsh...

... but seating the delegations at full strength would also be unfair.  FL and MI jumped the schedule.  There is a proscribed penalty (seating them at half strength) that was documented and known by everyone in advance.  If not that, some other compromise should be worked out, but letting the line jumpers get off without penalty would invite chaos in the future.

by protothad 2008-05-22 07:40PM | 0 recs
Re: I agree.

Look, when a result is invalid, it's invalid.  If you run a scientific experiment and your sample is accidentally contaminated, you have to throw the result out, even if you really like that result.  No one's blaming the voters, but the conditions in MI and FL simply aren't a realistic barometer of how the vote would have turned out under normal circumstances.  Anyway, this will be resolved soon enough.

by rfahey22 2008-05-22 06:14PM | 0 recs
Re: I agree.

Check out the new Quinnipiac poll for Florida:

Obama 41%
Clinton 41%

The Janaury election was fatally flawed.  It would be undemocratic to give it any effect.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x2882.xml?Rele aseID=1180

by soccerandpolitics 2008-05-22 07:40PM | 0 recs
Re: I agree.

"2.5 million folks voted and democrats are supposed to ignore that."

And millions more may have voted if they had been aware that there vote would actually count for something.

But, whatever, who cares about them, right?

by pomology 2008-05-22 06:16PM | 0 recs
They don't matter if it don't help our gal!

All for Hillary and none for Obama..that is how it should be...don't you understand democracy?  Our people count and yours don't

by netgui68 2008-05-22 07:10PM | 0 recs
Re: I agree.

I guess I'll have to say it again for everyone who doesn't listen.  Counting Florida and Michigan as valid elections is the equivalent of the Yankees and Red Sox playing an exhibition game in March and the winner of that game turning around and saying "Hey, um...we actually are going to count it as a real game.  Sorry."

by ProgressiveDL 2008-05-22 06:18PM | 0 recs
Re: I agree.

How many people didn't vote because they were told, including by Hillary Clinton, that the decision of the DNC should be respected?

Split the delegations in half, it's time to end this nonsense.

by BlueinColorado 2008-05-22 06:21PM | 0 recs
Where you surprised when Hillary did it?

Where you surprised when Hillary argued against to disenfranchise the Michigan vote?

by Al Rodgers 2008-05-22 06:22PM | 0 recs
Re: I agree.

How about the ability for lesser-known, underfinanced candidates to make a breakthrough?  You can't do that in large states, where television and name recognition dominate.  That's why the candidates signed the pledge saying that IA, NH, NV, and SC should go first.  Otherwise, Chris Dodd, Mike Huckabee, and Joe Biden or a future candidate like them would have no shot to prove themselves.

Democracy isn't just about counting votes; it's also about giving all the candidates a fair shot, too.

And disenfranchisement?  Well, because FL has a closed primary, were independents (and Republicans) disenfranchised, too?

by Brad G 2008-05-23 06:33AM | 0 recs
Re: It's DEMOCRACY Stupid!

I don't know how anyone would want to be on the side of not recognizing the votes of American citizen.

The Clinton camp clearly has the winning argument.

by lori 2008-05-22 06:08PM | 0 recs
Yup-they on both sides of the arugment

the clintons were against counting the vote, before they were for counting the vote.

by Al Rodgers 2008-05-22 06:15PM | 0 recs
What a sexist thing to say!

Are you attacking a woman's prerogative to change their mind? So we Agreed not to campaign or participate at least we were smart enough to leave our name on the ballot in case we had a change of mind...ha take that...we were ready to start shit on day one.

by netgui68 2008-05-22 07:16PM | 0 recs
rec

by ameridad 2008-05-22 07:47PM | 0 recs
The Clinton camp clearly has the winning argument.

Which one -- the argument before or the one after she realized she had lost?

by Freespeechzone 2008-05-22 06:22PM | 0 recs
Re: The Clinton camp clearly has the winning argum

And when Michigan came forward with a compromise last week, the Clinton camp was against it again.

And now they're against counting votes for anyone but Clinton. That's a fine moral argument to be making.

"Sorry, all the votes must count... the way we want them to count."

by Victor Laszlo 2008-05-22 06:28PM | 0 recs
At this point

it's all about keeping the cauldron of discontent bubbling.

by Freespeechzone 2008-05-22 07:18PM | 0 recs
Re: It's DEMOCRACY Stupid!

I agree Lori.

Some of the comments here make me weep for our party.  They don't sound like the Democrats I know in real life.  Not even close.

by alegre 2008-05-22 06:30PM | 0 recs
Re: It's DEMOCRACY Stupid!

WHAT ABOUT THE VOTERS WHO DID NOT VOTE BECAUSE THEY WERE TOLD THEIR VOTES WOULDN'T COUNT ANYWAY??  DO WE SAY FUCK YOU TO THEM!!!

SORRY FOR THE CAPS BUT NOBODY WILL ANSWER!!

by hootie4170 2008-05-22 06:52PM | 0 recs
I'll answer!

um...

It's Obama's fault?

by luckymortal 2008-05-22 07:48PM | 0 recs
Ask Obama about those voters.

He's the one who would not get behind re-votes.

by psychodrew 2008-05-22 07:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Ask Obama about those voters.

This talking point is sooooo last week.

by spacemanspiff 2008-05-22 08:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Ask Obama about those voters.

that's right! Obama's fault so punish the voters!

by luckymortal 2008-05-22 08:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Ask Obama about those voters.

A revote would have been a terrible idea.  It would have rewarded FL and MI with tie-breaker status after they broke the rules.  If you allow scofflaw FL and MI a tie-breaking revote, why not allow PA, NC, IN and all those other DNC rule-abiding states that had not voted when the re-vote was considered to reschedule their primary after FL and MI had their revote in order to gain tie-breaker status?

by Brad G 2008-05-23 06:26AM | 0 recs
Sorry, I'm all out of tissues.....

Some of these comments on this thread make you weep for our party?

Then let me ask you the question you ignored in a previous diary.

Why do you post diaries on No Quarter?

You want to talk about comments that inspire weeping, you need to look at some of the responses to your work on that website.

Would Senator Clinton approve of you rousting up support for her in that racist - xenophobic cesspool?

As one of the leaders of the Clinton supporters on this site, I would think you would be better than that.

by emptythreatsfarm 2008-05-22 06:52PM | 0 recs
I know, its so obvious

to me too.  I don't understand why people are making a fuss about FULL INCLUSION.  I heard one old white lady tell me she didn't vote in Florida because it wouldn't count and now she is all like, how come my voice isn't heard?
I was like, well who were you going to vote for.  And she said Obama, and I was like, you should've voted anyway and since you didn't vote, you don't get a say.  What an idiot

I am so glad that they aren't having a revote in MI.  I heard obama is leading in the polls.  Can you friggin believe it?  We need to have MI seated the way it is to avoid these stupid people from stealing the election from Hillary.  

You know what?  Even if MI/FL are seated as is and Hillary still looses, then we should still vote for McCain or this awesome green party girl McKinney.  Yeah!  That'll show those super sexist Obamamacacas a thing or to trying to take it from our Gurl

by KLRinLA 2008-05-22 07:57PM | 0 recs
Re: It's DEMOCRACY Stupid!

Seat their pledged delegates at 50%, give Obama all uncommitted delegates and votes from MI, and don't seat their superdelegates - they're the leaders who broke the rules, and they should be punished as such.  That's my solution.

by mistersite 2008-05-22 06:08PM | 0 recs
Re: It's DEMOCRACY Stupid!

Agreed.

by rfahey22 2008-05-22 06:09PM | 0 recs
Re: It's DEMOCRACY Stupid!

Waaaahhh, but that wouldn't help Hillary!

by ProgressiveDL 2008-05-22 06:19PM | 0 recs
Re: It's DEMOCRACY Stupid!

How sad.

Ya know my family had nothing to do with when their primary was held.  I DEFY you to say that to my kid brother's face.

BTW - he's 6 foot 5 and once you say it to him, you'd better think about running - fast.

by alegre 2008-05-22 06:32PM | 0 recs
Re: It's DEMOCRACY Stupid!

So are you telling folks that your brother would beat people up because they disagree with him and with you?

You sure do believe in free speech, democracy and the American way.

by politicsmatters 2008-05-22 06:36PM | 0 recs
Re: It's DEMOCRACY Stupid!

I would hope your brother has the maturity and intelligence to not react violently when someone tells him his state party's leadership played chicken with his vote in an attempt to increase their own prestige.  But if he doesn't, that's really none of my business.

by mistersite 2008-05-22 06:36PM | 0 recs
Re: It's DEMOCRACY Stupid!

Are you trying to say that your kid brother is such a fucking lunatic that he would try to physically harm someone for advocating a certain plan for dealing with the delegate allocation from Michigan (a state that violated party rules) that didn't result in the Hillary camp getting the exact result she wants?

You're so full of shit it's unbelievable.

Would your kid brother have punched Hillary in the face if he had her crowing about how the Michigan primary "wasn't going to count for anything" and when her advisors who sit on the DNC voted to strip Florida of all 210 delegates?

by Deano963 2008-05-22 06:55PM | 0 recs
Re: It's DEMOCRACY Stupid!

Really. Alegre's comment right here is bannable.

Bring on your brother tough guy/girl.  I would laugh at his ass as he went to jail for beating someone up over a delegate dispute.

Go fck yourself.  

by FinneganOregon 2008-05-22 07:23PM | 0 recs
Re: It's DEMOCRACY Stupid!

You should be aiming your anger at the Democratic state legislators who voted along with the Republicans to jump the schedule in the first place.  They were the ones who broke the DNC rules.  They were told in advance what the concequences would be.  I think those consequences are too harsh and I support a compromise, but seating them in full without a penalty would be equally unfair to all the states that did not jump the schedule.

Just seat the delegations at 50% already and lets start focusing on McCain.

by protothad 2008-05-22 07:49PM | 0 recs
Re: It's DEMOCRACY Stupid!

I DEFY you to tell me why MY vote (FLINT, yo) and the votes of my mother and grandmother shouldn't be counted for Obama~

YOU WANT TO DISENFRANCHISE PEOPLE I KNOW PERSONALLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

WHY??????????????????????

Is it because of those little hairs I leave in the sink?

by luckymortal 2008-05-22 07:52PM | 0 recs
Some people have no sense of humor.

"Oh Alegre threatened to have her brother beat me up!  She's threatening violence!"

Drama Queens!  Sounds like auditions for High School Musical 3 must be right around the corner.

by psychodrew 2008-05-22 08:04PM | 0 recs
Re: It's DEMOCRACY Stupid!

You really have become the textbook definition of a shrill hack.

by interestedbystander 2008-05-22 09:21PM | 0 recs
Alegre's just saying it

the way it is.  Some people are passionate, and take it personally when they're insulted.  Why go after a writer for sharing a character trait about a person that's truthful?  People need to stop living behind their keyboards and go out to learn about the real world.

by izarradar 2008-05-23 09:39AM | 0 recs
The problem Hillary has with your solution is

it's reasonable.

by Freespeechzone 2008-05-22 07:20PM | 0 recs
Re: It's DEMOCRACY Stupid!
We live in a Republic.  Our form of government is a representative democracy.  The one man, one vote thing is not our mode of operation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representat ive_democracy
by temptxan 2008-05-22 06:09PM | 0 recs
Re: It's DEMOCRACY Stupid!

There's virtually no part of our system that's one person one vote.

Since states are such different sizes, the number of votes to elect Senators vary greatly.

The president is chosen by the electoral college which is not one person one vote.

And because the way boundaries are drawn for congressional districts, there is often a variation between the number of votes cast for particular political parties and the numbers of House seats that are won by the parties.

by politicsmatters 2008-05-22 06:14PM | 0 recs
Re: the Republic thing

Thanks - may we remind you of that during conversations about the Electoral College and which candidate stands the best chance to win in November?

by pan230oh 2008-05-23 05:37AM | 0 recs
Re: the Republic thing

Sure, remind me.  Using the "electable" matrix is bunk.  

by temptxan 2008-05-24 05:48AM | 0 recs
closest thing to democracy in the nom race...

...is caucuses, where citizens meet face-to-face and elect leaders from among their number.  That's much more like the ancient Athenian model than anything like a primary, much less a general election, is.

As temptxan points out, our electoral and governance system is a republic, not a democracy.  Not that the electoral system bears much of an influence on the entirely separate process of party nominations.

by N in Seattle 2008-05-23 09:10AM | 0 recs
I'm not getting into this one.

Have fun guys.

by spacemanspiff 2008-05-22 06:11PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm not getting into this one.

I'm recc'ing by the way.

Might as well.

by spacemanspiff 2008-05-22 06:16PM | 0 recs
no claims under Voting Rights Act

This has been blogged all day.

The people who know something about voting rights law make the point that there's nothing racially discriminatory about the DNC's position, so therefore there's no legal basis for the lawsuit.

Also, the courts do not interfere with party matters, since they are allowed to make their own decisions under their First Amendment rights of freedom of association. The only time political parties have been restricted by the courts is when they did things like allow only whites to vote and there's nothing like that going on here.

by politicsmatters 2008-05-22 06:12PM | 0 recs
This thing is not intended to go to court

Its intended to get news play, maybe to put pressure on the credentials committee or undermine Obamas legitimacy... at this point who knows.  Whatever the reason, it is a gift to McCain and the neocons.

by protothad 2008-05-22 07:54PM | 0 recs
Re: no claims under Voting Rights Act

The Voting Rights Act requires the U.S. Justice Department to approve any significant voting change in Florida to make sure it doesn't disenfranchise minority voters. That includes the Democratic National Committee's demand that Florida switch "from a state-run primary to party-run caucus system" to avoid losing its delegates.

by KnowVox 2008-05-22 08:02PM | 0 recs
Re: no claims under Voting Rights Act

You keep missing this.  There was never a legislative adoption of a different voting system.  Because Florida never switched its system (no revote), there's nothing to pass by the DOJ.  I understand that you like this talking point, but it makes no sense.

by rfahey22 2008-05-22 09:46PM | 0 recs
Fl's delegates will be seated....

in spite of Hillary's attempts to keep her last cauldron of discontent bubbling.

by Freespeechzone 2008-05-22 06:14PM | 0 recs
Re: It's DEMOCRACY Stupid!
And what about the voters who chose to stay home because they were told their votes wouldn't count?
Everybody knew the rules before the game started. Is this what you would teach your children, that if your losing, try and get thr rules changed?
Is that the lesson for the youth of our nation?
by venician 2008-05-22 06:15PM | 0 recs
See the sig!!

Since we are in the mood of pimping sig lines.  Alegre read Sam Stein's post about the deal with Michigan and Florida.

Also, you have no credibility since you decided to  cite the racist Larry Johnson's NoQuarter website.  

What the hell is wrong with MyDD?

by sweet potato pie 2008-05-22 06:15PM | 0 recs
ooph - when did that happen?

by Al Rodgers 2008-05-22 06:18PM | 0 recs
Careful!

Didn't you hear?  It's illegal to have/flaunt a sig that Alegre disapproves of.

by Elsinora 2008-05-22 06:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Careful!

Oooh Alegre troll rated me. I'm sooo sad. Boohooo. I would rather be sad than a racist.

by sweet potato pie 2008-05-22 06:54PM | 0 recs
I guess troll-rating is her way of

trying to blackmail you into voting for HILLARY!!!!!!! lol........seriously though I can't fathom how she actually thinks she is doing Hillary any favors by writing highly deceptive and disengenuous diaries and then troll-rating people who point out her lies. All she does is increase peoples' hatred and distrust of Hillary Clinton and her supporters(well at least some of her supporters).

by Deano963 2008-05-22 07:00PM | 0 recs
Re: I guess troll-rating is her way of

She really is Clinton's worst enemy with the way she drives away the undecided.

by soccerandpolitics 2008-05-22 07:47PM | 0 recs
Re: It's DEMOCRACY Stupid!

Please embed this, someone:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OVuqHW7h Zo

Embed code is here: http://www.jedreport.com/

by politicsmatters 2008-05-22 06:17PM | 0 recs
Here ya go

by Al Rodgers 2008-05-22 06:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Here ya go

Thanks, Al. You're a real prince.

by politicsmatters 2008-05-22 06:21PM | 0 recs
Great video

but facts sure as hell get in the way of manufactured outrage so this video and the facts in it must be ignored.

by notme54 2008-05-22 06:46PM | 0 recs
Re: It's DEMOCRACY Stupid!

That's a great video, alas I don't know how to embed video.

by venician 2008-05-22 06:24PM | 0 recs
Re: It's DEMOCRACY Stupid!

The Democratic Party is a private organization that is fully entitled to set its own rules as to how it picks its nominee.  

We could have Al Gore draw a name from a hat.  That would be legal.

The system ain't perfect and I'm all for fixing it.  But I won't support "fixing" it in the middle of a contest.

That is worse than any complaint you may have Alegre.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-05-22 06:19PM | 0 recs
Yes, the votes should count.

But halving the delegates (which I suspect will be the outcome of the May 31 ruling) deprives nobody of a vote.  As for this:

Not an option in my book - that's like saying the citizens of Florida and Michigan (my home state) are only entitled to half the representation the rest of us enjoy and that's NOT what the Democratic party is all about.

You ARE only entitled to half the representation.  Period.  Breaking the rules--which all parties agreed to beforehand--has consequences.  Period.

Your argument here is akin to a thief in prison whining that being denied his liberty is unfair.  The chutzpah is astounding.

by Elsinora 2008-05-22 06:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Yes, the votes should count.

My favorite definition of chutzpah is the man who murders his parents and then throws himself on the mercy of the court because he's an orphan.

by politicsmatters 2008-05-22 06:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Yes, the votes should count.

Kentucky takes away the franchise from felons. Needless to say, this falls hardest on those who are unable to hire a lawyer to negotiate down from a felony to a misdemeanor - the poor and African-Americans. That probably cost Obama a point or two in Kentucky.

Thank god they don't take the vote away disproportionately from African-Americans in Florida. That would be... un-Democratic!

<sigh>

by Victor Laszlo 2008-05-22 06:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Yes, the votes should count.

Alegre, You sure are in a troll rating mood. You don't know that chutzpah definition? Well, it's part of my cult-chu, dahling.  Go to Boca, tell the folks there, and you'll get a good laugh.  Those are my parents' buds and they love to tell the good ones again and again.

by politicsmatters 2008-05-22 06:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Yes, the votes should count.

I'm giving you a bunch of Recs to counteract the Troll Queen. :)

by Deano963 2008-05-22 07:05PM | 0 recs
Buds?

where?

where?

by spacemanspiff 2008-05-22 07:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Buds?

I'm talking the old Jews in Florida, the ones who moved down from NY and environs. Those are my parents' buds. They love the old jokes about the folks with chutzpah and the difference between the shmiziel and shimazel, and even a shmuck or mohel joke once in awhile. If you don't know what I'm talking about, get to a library and take out The Joy of Yiddish by Rosen. Very funny!

by politicsmatters 2008-05-22 07:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Buds?

Rec'd for Yiddish.

by CrazyDrumGuy 2008-05-23 11:53AM | 0 recs
And Alegre engages in ratings abuse...

again.  What a surprise!

You know, Al, I could take you much more seriously if you actually REFUTED points you disagreed with, instead of downrating them.

by Elsinora 2008-05-22 07:43PM | 0 recs
Re: And Alegre engages in ratings abuse...

I don't think she realizes the damage she's doing the Clinton brand when she acts like this.  It makes people think that the campaign itself doesn't believe its own arguments.

Defending your arguments makes them stronger.  Refusing to do so and retaliating via ratings makes them weaker.

by Koan 2008-05-23 08:24AM | 0 recs
Re: It's DEMOCRACY Stupid!

And I sure wish some folks around here would learn some political history.  It sure would be nice to claim that the Democrats always stood for voting rights, but in fact southern Democrats were the ones blocking them for more than a hundred years.

In Texas, the Democratic party didn't allow black people to vote in their primaries at all and since they were the only game in town (the Republican party was not viable in the south at that time because Lincoln had been a Republican), that really meant that blacks had no effective political voice.

So let's face facts about where this party used to be and not romanticize the Democratic party of the south.

by politicsmatters 2008-05-22 06:20PM | 0 recs
i still have my sign from the 2000 recount.

back then, the people attempting to keep floridians' votes from counting were james baker and a private planeload of republican attorneys. now, it's democrats.

by campskunk 2008-05-22 06:21PM | 0 recs
Re: i still have my sign from the 2000 recount.

Boy, is that BS.

The election was flawed. It didn't pass the most basic tests for free and fair elections set under international law. Counting votes from a flawed election doesn't magically transform the election and its results into a fair situation.

by politicsmatters 2008-05-22 06:25PM | 0 recs
cheap rhetoric...

... from someone with no skin in the game. your vote didn't get invalidated, mine did.

also factually inaccurate, but then, most of your statemets are.

by campskunk 2008-05-22 06:32PM | 0 recs
Re: cheap rhetoric...

Be precise. If any of my facts were wrong, I will admit that and correct them.

Thanks. :}

by politicsmatters 2008-05-22 06:38PM | 0 recs
Re: cheap rhetoric...


I'm ambivalent about "solving" this problem.

But can you address the videos above?

Is your position that she was once wrong, but is now on the right side of the matter...and that's all that matters?

by Crookd River Progressive 2008-05-22 06:53PM | 0 recs
Re: cheap rhetoric...

Your vote was rightly invalidated.

Their contests were not sanctioned, and those states were not to be the initial contests, so sayeth the DNC.  I'm sorry, but them be the rules.

But wait, there's more!  You can still vote Obama in the general election!  YAAAAAY!

by obscurant 2008-05-23 10:11AM | 0 recs
Re: i still have my sign from the 2000 recount.

Alegre, So you're going through this and troll rating pretty much everything I'm writing even though I'm not repeating any points? Why is that exactly?

by politicsmatters 2008-05-22 06:47PM | 0 recs
Re: i still have my sign from the 2000 recount.

I find it interesting that Florida is the 4th largest state in the nation, yet finishes 8th in votes cast in the democratic primary. And why is that? Because people stayed home because they were told their votes wouldn't count.

by venician 2008-05-22 06:29PM | 0 recs
false.

another myth. democrats were told by karen thurman, the state party chair since you probably aren't from here and don't know the players, that they needed to get out and vote - "there will be no other primary" were her words. but don't let the facts get in your way. keep making shit up.

by campskunk 2008-05-22 06:35PM | 0 recs
Re: false.

Venician gave actual ranks of the size of the state and the relative turnout.  Was there anything false about that?

And your claim that it was false that people were told that their votes wouldn't count because some party official said different is pretty silly. The party official is just one person and the overall message was that the election results wouldn't count. I talked to a friend in FL before the election and she said that she was only voting because of the tax provision but that her students (she's a professor like me) weren't voting because they only cared about the presidential primary.

by politicsmatters 2008-05-22 06:41PM | 0 recs
You speak for all of Florida

because you live in Florida?  Kind of a weak argument.

Most of my family is in Orlando I think they disagree with you yet

you don't see them pretending to speak for everyone in the state.

Rude too.

by spacemanspiff 2008-05-22 06:48PM | 0 recs
Re: You speak for all of Florida

you seem to have either misread my statement or deliberately misinterpreted it. i'm speaking as one florida voter whose vote isn't being counted. the hilarious thing down here is all the obama supporters who have to defend the position that their vote doesn't count either- orders from headquarters, you know. it's disenfranchisement for the greater good - something like that.

your family is free to ignore the party chairwoman and not vote. the way us florida voters have been treated, i wouldn't be surprised if they have a lot of company this november. florida is one of the many states where hillary beats mccain, and obama loses to him.

by campskunk 2008-05-22 07:33PM | 0 recs
Re: You speak for all of Florida

You made no sense at all. Mojo for "trying".

by spacemanspiff 2008-05-22 07:42PM | 0 recs
Re: You speak for all of Florida

Polls show them both within the MoE - they are essentially running neck and neck.

by interestedbystander 2008-05-22 09:28PM | 0 recs
TR ABUSER

This comment is perfectly within the MyDD guidelines. Troll rating it was an abuse of your privilidges. You should correct your error or be known by all as a TR ABUSER.

I will not respond in kind, even though it would be just and the easiest thing to do.

by Freespeechzone 2008-05-22 09:38PM | 0 recs
Re: false.

The numbers I stated are true. Can you explain how Florida had such poor voter turnout?

by venician 2008-05-22 08:05PM | 0 recs
Re: false.

Venecian: I find it interesting that Florida is the 4th largest state in the nation, yet finishes 8th in votes cast in the democratic primary.

campskunk:/democrats were told by karen thurman, the state party chair since you probably aren't from here and don't know the players, that they needed to get out and vote - "there will be no other primary" were her words. but don't let the facts get in your way. keep making shit up.

You are aware that your fact does not contradict Venecian's fact, right?

by Koan 2008-05-23 08:31AM | 0 recs
Re: i still have my sign from the 2000 recount.

Indeed, well over a million probably did.

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

by rfahey22 2008-05-22 06:37PM | 0 recs
Re: i still have my sign from the 2000 recount.

You're kidding - right?

They had a record turout this year.  Nearly 50% participation.

by alegre 2008-05-22 06:43PM | 0 recs
Re: i still have my sign from the 2000 recount.

When every state has record participation, that statistic doesn't mean a whole lot.  Michigan and Florida are 2 of only 3 states in which Democratic turnout was less than the 2004 GE turnout for Kerry.  The other state was ... Arizona.  See the study above.

by rfahey22 2008-05-22 06:45PM | 0 recs
Re: i still have my sign from the 2000 recount.

That was an easy argument to win. Mojo.

by spacemanspiff 2008-05-22 06:49PM | 0 recs
Re: i still have my sign from the 2000 recount.

Much appreciated.

by rfahey22 2008-05-22 06:52PM | 0 recs
TR ABUSER

This comment is perfectly within the MyDD guidelines. Troll rating it was an abuse of your privilidges. You should correct your error or be known by all as a TR ABUSER.

I will not respond in kind, even though it would be just and the easiest thing to do.

by Freespeechzone 2008-05-22 09:39PM | 0 recs
Re: It's DEMOCRACY Stupid!

You interested in reforming the primary calendar? Then you need to start by respecting the rules as set out by the DNC. If two states get away with pushing their primaries ahead this cycle without punishment, then in 2012 or 2016 when we got a shiny new system in place, Iowa and New Hampshire will go "screw that," jump to the front again, and everything turns into a free for all melee.

The question of whether or not seating Florida and Michigan will affect the results have passed (they won't). As far as Obama is concerned, yes, he could have them seated in full and he'd still have the nomination. But how the DNC deals with this sets the tone for future primaries, and if you were to get what you'd want, we'd be stuck with the system we have for the foreseeable future.

by Jaffee 2008-05-22 06:21PM | 0 recs
Re: It's DEMOCRACY Stupid!

then, why not open it up to everyone. (not just dems)

oh yeah......because its a primary stupid!

by citizendave 2008-05-22 06:21PM | 0 recs
It's the rules

and the rules you agreed to. Where were all these diaries when the ruling went down?

If rules don't matter at all then get ready for the next round of primaries to begin around August '09.

by notme54 2008-05-22 06:22PM | 0 recs
What rules did the VOTERS agree to?

That's the key issue.  They were pawns.

by katmandu1 2008-05-22 06:25PM | 0 recs
Re: What rules did the VOTERS agree to?

Well, in closed primaries at least all the voters agreed to be members of a party that set those rules.

And in an open primary, the voters agreed to vote in the primary of a party that set those rules.

by pomology 2008-05-22 06:28PM | 0 recs
Re: What rules did the VOTERS agree to?
What rules have the voters ever agreed to?
The voters have never made the rules and they were deemed fair enough that neither Clinton or Terry decided they needed changing.
by notme54 2008-05-22 06:31PM | 0 recs
Another bad poll for Obama

Rasmussen, released today:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows John McCain earning 46% of the vote while Barack Obama attracts 42%. This is the first time in nearly three weeks that either candidate has enjoyed a four-point advantage (see recent daily results).

McCain's edge can be traced directly to the fact that just 66% of Democrats say they will vote for Obama at this time. Twenty-three percent (23%) of all Democrats say that if the election were held today, they'd vote for McCain.

Offhand, does anyone know how many Dems crossed over to Dubya in 2000?  I like Gore a lot more now, but I thought both he and Kerry were weak candidates.

by katmandu1 2008-05-22 06:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Another bad poll for Obama

And you know why Dems haven't consolidated around Obama yet? Because Clinton is raising absurd arguments on gender victimhood and these states, trying to delegitimize him. At the same time, Obama hasn't been criticizing Clinton but is rather praising her.

If you remember, McCain didn't consolidate his party around him for awhile. These things happen.  But Obama clinches total delegates, Clinton will endorse him.

by politicsmatters 2008-05-22 06:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Another bad poll for Obama

They haven't rallied around him because he hasn't actually won yet.

You want to keep Hillary's diehard base at home in November?  Drive her out of the race right now.

It's quite clear that Obama is going to be the nominee.  That's obvious.  The SD's are not going support Hillary if Obama has a lead in the pledged delegates.

In a few weeks, when Obama has the magic number, Hillary will endorse him.  She'll hold his hand and ask her voters to back him.  Then he'll get a HUGE bump in the polls.  At least 10pts.  Probably 15.

by psychodrew 2008-05-22 08:51PM | 0 recs
Gallup raises you

Barack Obama continues to hold an 11 percentage point lead over Hillary Clinton, 53% to 42%, in national Democratic nomination preferences. Obama maintains a slim advantage, 47% to 44%, over John McCain in the latest general election trial heat.

by Student Guy 2008-05-22 06:56PM | 0 recs
Re: It's DEMOCRACY Stupid!

Thanks for great diary, alegre.  :)

 

by Hurdy Gurdy 2008-05-22 06:24PM | 0 recs
And Geller is the problem.

Take a look at the "company you keep" diary and you'll see Geller's wink, wink, nudge, nudge, to the Republicans that he didn't believe Florida would be sanctioned. This whole thing starts with Geller.

As for "one person, one vote", the very concept of superdelegates makes a mockery of that principle. Each of the superdelegates has the power as an individual of a pledged delegate that represents thousands of our individual (non-super) votes.

And what about all those voters who were told the illegitimate contests in MI and FL wouldn't count and  thus stayed home. What about their votes. If someone deliberately mislead people into thinking their votes wouldn't count when they knew they would we'd demand that person be arrested and jailed, and yet you think it's perfectly OK that all those people were told it didn't matter if they showed up at the polls and now you want to validate the votes of all the people who voted even knowing it wouldn't count. That's democratic? That's election fraud.

by Travis Stark 2008-05-22 06:24PM | 0 recs
Re: And Geller is the problem.

Yeah, check out diary: http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/5/22/2054 8/9967

by politicsmatters 2008-05-22 07:04PM | 0 recs
Re: It's DEMOCRACY Stupid!

This whole argument based on purported disenfranchisement is disingenuous, and it's getting old.  Nobody was making these arguments back when the decision to not seat the delegates was made.  Why not?  Because when Hillary was winning, she and her supporters didn't give a rat's ass about who she was disenfranchising or whether democratic principles were being exercised.

Alegre, I appreciate your passion, and I realize that you are using the tactic of relentless repetition in the hope of convincing enough people that your argument is sincere in the face of overwhelming evidence that it is not.  Here of all places, such a tactic is bound to be fruitless.  Save it for your phone calls to the voters in the remaining primaries.  

by MikeyB 2008-05-22 06:25PM | 0 recs
Terry McAuliffe

"I'm going outside the primary window," [Michigan Sen. Carl Levin] told me definitively.

"If I allow you to do that, the whole system collapses," I said. "We will have chaos. I let you make your case to the DNC, and we voted unanimously and you lost."

He kept insisting that they were going to move up Michigan on their own, even though if they did that, they would lose half their delegates. By that point Carl and I were leaning toward each other over a table in the middle of the room, shouting and dropping the occasional expletive.

"You won't deny us seats at the convention," he said.

"Carl, take it to the bank," I said. "They will not get a credential. The closest they'll get to Boston will be watching it on television. I will not let you break this entire nominating process for one state. The rules are the rules. If you want to call my bluff, Carl, you go ahead and do it."

We glared at each other some more, but there was nothing much left to say. I was holding all the cards and Levin knew it.

[Source: McAuliffe, Terry. What A Party!, p. 325.]

by notme54 2008-05-22 06:27PM | 0 recs
You're a hypocrate

if you do not include IA, NV, ME, and WA in your "COUNT EVERY VOTE" cries.

by lizardbox 2008-05-22 06:29PM | 0 recs
Re: You're a hypocrate

Is that where you store your hippo's?

by KnowVox 2008-05-23 10:46AM | 0 recs
Re: It's DEMOCRACY Stupid!

by Caldonia 2008-05-22 06:30PM | 0 recs
Why should anyone take you seriously?

Can you take a look at the first comment on this diary and then explain why anyone should take you seriously ever again?

by map 2008-05-22 06:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Why should anyone take you seriously?

what is wrong with the comment ?

You do yourself a disservice by pointing to a comment that is not out of the ordinnary.

by lori 2008-05-22 06:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Why should anyone take you seriously?

Because Allegre was claiming that the 75,000 crowd gathered for a Decemberist concert rather than to see Obama.  The story is patently stupid.  The Decemberists occasionally sell out clubs that hold around 1500 people.  And 75,000 is a HUGE crowd....you get the idea.

The comment shows Allegre's desperation in her attempts to downplay anything positive about the Obama campaign.  It's somewhat pathological I think.  (Especially after hearing her comments on the Hillary conference call....wow....)

by Deadalus 2008-05-22 06:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Why should anyone take you seriously?

Alegre - " Heard About That From Some Friends ,They were furious that the event was portrayed by BO's camp as one of his campaign rallies "

- " Because Allegre was claiming that the 75,000 crowd gathered for a Decemberist concert rather than to see Obama. "

- Can you point out where she " claimed " what you are accusing her off. She was clearly relaying what she heard from friends not her opinion.

Any reasonable reading of what she wrote clearly shows you have no idea what you are talking about.

I know its fun for some folks supporting Obama on this blog to attack her personally which is becoming increasingly irritating but it lacks credibility when you start making stuff up.

by lori 2008-05-22 06:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Why should anyone take you seriously?

Lori,

I do know what I'm talking about.  That's the difference between me and Alegre.

When I point out that the Decembrists couldn't hope to draw a crowd a tenth of that size, it's because I know what I'm talking about.

When I point out that this signals desperation to downplay anything positive about Obama's campaign, it's because that is the only motive that can reasonably account for Alegre's comment.  

I find it highly unlikely that anyone complained that the Obama rally was portrayed as an Obama rally.  It was an Obama rally, with a little known band playing beforehand.  To posit anything otherwise is simply stupid.

Where did I make anything up?  In fact, the facts are on my side, not yours, and not hers.

by Deadalus 2008-05-22 06:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Why should anyone take you seriously?

You accused her of something specific  and absent you being able to point out where exactly she made the comments you attributed to her then you are wrong.

by lori 2008-05-22 07:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Why should anyone take you seriously?

Why don't you just admit that the comment in question was stupid.  

Because it was.  I'm not even sure what your argument is at this point.  I accused her of desperation in an attempt to downplay a positive about Obama's campaign.  That was pretty clear from the comment she made.

by Deadalus 2008-05-22 07:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Why should anyone take you seriously?

I live in bumblef**k CA and I don't even know who your Decembrists are but I guarantee if they came to my area to give a free concert 60,000 would show up who never heard of them. In fact 60,000 people would show up to listen to Alegre as long as she had a DJ or played any kind of music.

I'm not saying Obama wasnt' the main attraction or the second main attraction in Oregon but our lifestyle here is much like Oregon, according to my Oregonian relatives, and we show up to the 'if it's free, it's for me' events. In fact if Obama came here to speak (when hell freezes over)with only a radio we could get 65,000 to come with....most of them would be Republicans but hey free entertainment is free entertainment.

by Justwords 2008-05-22 08:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Why should anyone take you seriously?

Lori... please.  

A republican troll posts an absurd "rumor" from a right wing source and Alegre posts a "that's what I heard too!" comment.

You can't flush credibility away faster.

by map 2008-05-22 06:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Why should anyone take you seriously?

Thanks...said it better than I did.

by Deadalus 2008-05-22 06:59PM | 0 recs
The problem

The problem is that Hillary's biggest blogger at MyDD refuses to concede defeat and walk away.  They can't argue with the facts and they can't debate her logic, so they troll her diaries with abusive comments.  Reminds me of how the GOP treated Hillary in the 1990s.

by psychodrew 2008-05-22 08:20PM | 0 recs
Re: The problem

They can't argue with the facts and they can't debate her logic.

This is an argument from straight through the lookingglass.  I've been reading Alegre's diaries for months.  She rarely responds to logical counters to her arguments and rarely indulges in, you know, back and forth discussion.  Read the threads above!  How many end in "crickets" because she doesn't have a counterargument?

What's her answer to these points:

1) Clinton's campaign played a large role in stripping Mi and FL of their delegates (see the McAuliffe quote above).

2) Clinton herself said that MI's vote would not matter and would not be binding.

3) Neither Alegre, Clinton, Ickes, nor anybody else supporting her campaign made any noise about MI and FL before Clinton started losing, thereby undercutting her credibility.

4) No popular vote totals from MI can possibly be taken seriously if they count Obama's votes as 0.

5) MI and FL's lack of credentials are entirely due to the legislatures of those states making a power play for influence.  They traded binding votes for the chance at having early influence in what everybody thought would be a quick process.  They miscalculated.  The only remedy for that problem is for MI and FL voters to vote out the assholes who traded away their votes.  (And no, they weren't all Republican legislators, either.)

If Alegre would substantively address these questions--hell, if the Clinton campaign would!--and make a good-faith, reasonable case, she wouldn't get flamed.

I haven't seen it.  If you have, could you point it out to me?

by Koan 2008-05-23 07:26AM | 0 recs
Not like I was expecting a response . . .

. . . but the silence does say something.

by Koan 2008-05-23 01:19PM | 0 recs
Are you obsessed?

Seriously.

by psychodrew 2008-05-22 08:17PM | 0 recs
By the way, from your previous

diary, you made a comment that prompted a question from me that you never got around to replying.

I was wondering if you could answer now.

http://www.mydd.com/comments/2008/5/21/2 23430/842?pid=79#92

If Clinton took it to the convention, lost, and had no place on the ticket (neither top, nor bottom), would you then accept Obama as the nominee and "our best chance against McCain", etc?

by Firewall 2008-05-22 06:43PM | 0 recs
Re: By the way, from your previous

Lol. I remember reading that when you first posted it. If, somehow, you got her to respond, she would have to give a conditional yes...if the nominaton met her ethereal and goal-post changing definition of legitimacy.

by catilinus 2008-05-22 07:25PM | 0 recs
Hillary disenfranchising black Michigan voters

That would be the effect if Hillary gets her way and Obama gets 0 delegates from Michigan.  

And don't say that it's okay to disenfranchise black voters in Michigan just because their candidate pulled himself off the ballot.  The voters had no control over that decision, just as the Florida voters had no control over their legislature moving the primary up.  

So, does Hillary really care about the voting rights of blacks in Florida, or does she only care if it will help her win?  

by ProfessorReo 2008-05-22 06:48PM | 0 recs
Do You Really Need an Answer?

Hillary cares about Hillary.  That's it.

She's a parroting squawkbox by now with early stage memory loss forgetting that she signed off on Michigan or Florida.

I don't know who's more disingenous - HRC or the supporters who buy into this non-sense.

Inevitablility is a bitch, ain't it?

by LtWorf 2008-05-22 06:56PM | 0 recs
Re: It's DEMOCRACY Stupid!
BTW, I just noticed that 5 add-on supers will be picked in the next few days, all from states Obama won. I wonder how many he'll get.  I think either 4 or 5.  He might split GA, 1-1, which would give him 4.
Add-on calendar here - http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/03/ add-on-superdelegate-selection-schedule. html
by politicsmatters 2008-05-22 06:52PM | 0 recs
I have..

...a grandfather and grandmother in FL and two uncles and one aunt in MI they did not vote in the Democratic Primary because they were told their vote wouldn't matter anyway...So what makes your family's votes more important than mine??

by hootie4170 2008-05-22 06:54PM | 0 recs
I said the same thing upthread

Most of my family is in Orlando. They didn't vote either because it wasn't going to count. It's ok to disenfranchise them yet every vote counts!

by spacemanspiff 2008-05-22 07:02PM | 0 recs
Re: I said the same thing upthread

Why didn't they vote?  Weren't there other things on the ballot?

by JustJennifer 2008-05-22 07:34PM | 0 recs
You working a poll?

by spacemanspiff 2008-05-22 07:46PM | 0 recs
Re: You working a poll?

Yes as a matter of fact I am.  

by JustJennifer 2008-05-23 12:39AM | 0 recs
Re: I have..

Didn't you hear?  Allegre and campskunk speak for all Michiganders and all Floridians, respectively.

by rfahey22 2008-05-22 07:06PM | 0 recs
NO! COUNT EVERY VOTE (for my candidate!)

This is about the right of hard-working-white-low-educated voters to have their votes counted (for Hillary) whether they voted or not!

by luckymortal 2008-05-22 07:25PM | 0 recs
Ickes

Just listened to the tape you posted.

Boy, was that funny to hear that "Harold Ickes knows about this process better than anyone when he voted to strip the delegates from FL and MI.

Yeah, he sure does know a lot!

by politicsmatters 2008-05-22 06:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Ickes

Stop it with the facts.  Alegre doesnt DO facts.

by FinneganOregon 2008-05-22 07:16PM | 0 recs
This will get bombarded

but I wonder which is more common:

Alegre saying "gang" in a diary.
Or John McCain saying "my friends" in a speech.

by Student Guy 2008-05-22 07:00PM | 0 recs
The tone has been extremely civil

on this diary yet don't count out people complaining of spamming or trolling.  

by spacemanspiff 2008-05-22 07:05PM | 0 recs
There could be a good drinking game in that. n/t

by lollydee 2008-05-23 09:25AM | 0 recs
If Hillary had been pushing inclusion we would

have had a revote.  She wanted to exclude and disenfrachise, a large portion of voters who happend to be in Demographics that do not favor her.   She has never been for a Democratic or Enfranchising solution.

by Tumult 2008-05-22 07:09PM | 0 recs
Yeah, but....

Have you seen Detroit?

THere are so many non hard-working-white-low-education voters (Or whatever) there!

by luckymortal 2008-05-22 07:15PM | 0 recs
You all are too critical of Alegre!

With all these details about rules and people in Michigan who actually wanted to vote for that other guy....

I mean, she can't very well say "steal all of Michigan's vote's for my candidate!" can she?

by luckymortal 2008-05-22 07:13PM | 0 recs
Re: It's DEMOCRACY Stupid!

I have to admit, I skipped over the end of the diary. But now I read the rest and boy is it silly -- "Hillary stood before the people of Michigan"

What a joke. She said that she wasn't taking her name off the ballot just so that people would keep in mind that there was a Democratic contest. She told NH it wouldn't matter that her name was on the ballot. And now this is transfigured into her upholding democracy in Michigan.

What can you say? It's chutzpah personified.

by politicsmatters 2008-05-22 07:15PM | 0 recs
Ah ha! You fell for her ruse!

That's just what she wanted you to think when she said that Michigan's votes wouldn't count!

But really she was just buying time so she could build herself a indestructible voter-enfranchiseing suit of iron!

I mean, Irony!

by luckymortal 2008-05-22 07:19PM | 0 recs
Re: It's DEMOCRACY Stupid!

Thats it I have finally snapped.

The only way to deal with Alegre is to treat her the same as Karl Rove because quite frankly she is no better and in many ways much much worse.

You are NOT a democrat and how dare you even claim to be.

With no due respect FCUK YOU.

Seriously. It is not in my nature to start cussing at people but the fact that this POS diary is recomended and the fact that this POS diarist engages in half truths and bullshit innuendo and refuses to engage in any substantial debate.

Seriously Alegre - go fck yourself.  I am tired of this crap and you.  

You are a poison to my party that is no better than Katherine Harris.  You know damn well that Clinton had no problem with stripping Florida and Michigan and went along with it. You KNOW that.  Yet you persist.

You are a despicable person.  You need to go hang out with your buddies at Little Green Footballs because quite frankly I do not want YOU in our Party (and I have no idea what your sex is and I really don't care so don't you dare make this a sexist thing this is about you, you miserable p.o.s.).

I know I will probably get banned for this post but someone needs to say this.  Alegre is NOT a democrat.  Alegre is not a good person because she engages in personal and deeply distasteful and hurtful attacks and NEVER gets called on it.  So here I am calling you on it.

Please please please go fck yourself.

by FinneganOregon 2008-05-22 07:15PM | 0 recs
Re: It's DEMOCRACY Stupid!

I think Karen Hughes is a better analog.

by map 2008-05-22 07:22PM | 0 recs
Re: It's DEMOCRACY Stupid!

Facts are annoying for some people but you have to keep your composure dude. I had to hiderate that. Personal attacks are not cool.

by spacemanspiff 2008-05-22 07:24PM | 0 recs
According to Todd

the 0 is for comments with no content at all. This comment has some good content, as well as being an honest show of emotion.

No, I don't think it's the most effective communication, but I wouldn't hide it.

But then again, I guess I'm not so stridently pro-censorship as some here....

Just my opinion.

by luckymortal 2008-05-22 07:30PM | 0 recs
Re: According to Todd

You make good points. I'll troll rate it. Still think it was kinda of heated.

by spacemanspiff 2008-05-22 07:48PM | 0 recs
Breathe deeply and calm down

I am sure she is just punch drunk under the Clinton BS spell.  If she bothers you this much I recommend taking a break from the blogs or visit a more friendly site like DKos.  Some people can't and won't be convinced that their views are off base...they do not want to see it, refuse to entertain it and are deaf to anything other than their desire of how they want things to be.

by netgui68 2008-05-22 07:33PM | 0 recs
Uh....

Are you off your meds or did you get lost trying to find redstate.com?

by psychodrew 2008-05-22 08:23PM | 0 recs
He probaly just came from

No Quarter or Hillaryis44 and blew his lid...can you blame him?

by KLRinLA 2008-05-22 09:42PM | 0 recs
Hey dude, dust it off

I know how you feel, been there before.  The trick is to type it out review it, get  some water or walk around the room, come back reread and delete/edit it.  You'll feel better for getting it out.  Since you obviously have good sense to see through this diary I'd appreciate more comments from you, so don't go getting all banned.  That being said, if you do get banned, well that's a hell of way to go

by KLRinLA 2008-05-22 09:24PM | 0 recs
Re: It's DEMOCRACY Stupid!

Totally agree with the sentiments, just not the specific language.

by interestedbystander 2008-05-22 09:39PM | 0 recs
Re: It's DEMOCRACY Stupid!

"(Thanks to No Quarter for getting this up on line)"

...No Quarter.

by catilinus 2008-05-22 07:19PM | 0 recs
My parents...

live in a caucus state.  They are handicapped and couldn't go to the caucus.  

So, they filed an absentee ballot that WAS counted.  When I hear that caucuses are exclusive, I know this is not true as all caucus states provide absentee ballots that are reported in the caucus place.

Please, when you talk about how undemocratic caucuses are, please include this fact.

by igottheblues 2008-05-22 07:20PM | 0 recs
Re: My parents...

But then Barack Obama stole their absentee ballots and had his Obamabots take over the caucuses and force everyone to either vote for him or be thrown under the bus.

And that's why caucuses are undemocratic.

by CrazyDrumGuy 2008-05-23 12:02PM | 0 recs
Seriously,

I mean, she's really good at it,

but why do we all show up to watch Alegre milk the cow?

by luckymortal 2008-05-22 07:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Seriously,

Come now, you hid me for saying that Alegre was asking for money?

Would you please reconsider or explain?

by luckymortal 2008-05-22 08:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Seriously,

By the way, you just gave me my first non-retaliatory down-rate.

I try to be very nice here.

Did I really deserve it?

by luckymortal 2008-05-22 08:14PM | 0 recs
Re: It's DEMOCRACY Stupid!

I mean we ARE still DEMOCRATS - right????

I don't know...are we? I mean, I read all the time on here how supposed "democrats" will vote for McCain over Obama in the fall when he is the nominee. Doesn't sound like we are all DEMOCRATS.

And I've read three of your previous posts and it's pointless to debate or have a discussion here because nobody is open for discussion. Irrational thinking is what comes to mind. Especially with the Florida/Michigan issue.

by YoungDemnCA 2008-05-22 07:22PM | 0 recs
So Dishonest

"Guys this is NOT a question of what Hillary wants."

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

NO ONE BELIEVES YOU.

by Slim Tyranny 2008-05-22 07:22PM | 0 recs
I do!

I've never known the Clintons to lie.

by ragekage 2008-05-22 09:04PM | 0 recs
Then tell me

Why did she and her supporters on the DNC agree to punish Michigan and Florida? Why did she sneak her name back on the Michigan ballot after Edwards and Obama took their names off? Do you realize that, in Michigan a lot of Democrats concluded that the primary would not count and crossed over to the Republican primary to make mischief and vote for Romney? Why did the Clinton campaign wait until after the primaries to decide they shouls count, and declare that other states (who did not vote for her) do not matter? Tell me with a straght face that ifsomeone else did what Hillary is doing now, it would be ok, too.

by RandyMI 2008-05-22 07:23PM | 0 recs
Re: It's DEMOCRACY Stupid!

Was Clinton standing up for voters when she tried to close down caucus sites on the Vegas strip?

by politicsmatters 2008-05-22 07:25PM | 0 recs
Re: It's DEMOCRACY Stupid!

Why was this troll rated?

by politicsmatters 2008-05-23 03:41AM | 0 recs
Re: It's DEMOCRACY Stupid!

Because caucuses are undemocratic (Hillary loses) and this is thread about democracy (Hillary wins).

by CrazyDrumGuy 2008-05-23 12:03PM | 0 recs
I live in CA now

If there is one state that should have gone first, it is us, but we followed the rules. Clinton won here fair and square and I respect that. But the idiots in the Michigan Democratic Party, led by Debbie Dingell, thought otherwise and tries to hijack the party process, asHillary is doing now.

by RandyMI 2008-05-22 07:30PM | 0 recs
The Democratic Party HATES Democracy!

And now, only one woman can save us!

Only one woman cares about the (hard-working etc.) voters in Michigan!

by luckymortal 2008-05-22 07:37PM | 0 recs
Democracy?

Then count ALL the votes.

In FL, Clinton won 49.8% of the vote. Obama won ~36%, but the other candidates all endorsed him, so if we add their vote totals, Obama won Florida.

In MI, from the exit polls, Clinton would have lost ~55-45 if we assign Kucinich/Edwards/etc. supporters to Obama based on endorsements

by MILiberal 2008-05-22 07:37PM | 0 recs
This is aboot respect! This is aboot dignity!

In fact, I've heard she only ran for president after her voter-enfranchising 7th sense foretold the peril that Michigan voters were in!

But she needs your help (money!)

by luckymortal 2008-05-22 07:42PM | 0 recs
Re: This is aboot respect! This is aboot dignity!

The internet has money! She should get some that money!  Yeah!  Internet money!

by minnesotaryan 2008-05-22 08:06PM | 0 recs
Re: It's DEMOCRACY Stupid!

From the diary:

"Gang they had a nearly 50% turnout in a primary that people said wouldn't count.  Doesn't that tell you someing????"

This is misleading, given the fact that also on the ballot that day was a ballot question concerning a state constitutional amendment regarding property taxes. Here is a link to a sample ballot with the property tax question:

http://www.votewaltoncounty.com/Sample%2 0Ballots/PPP%2008%20DEM%20SAMPLE.pdf

Now, did a large amount of people go out and vote for their primary choice? I'm sure there was. Was the turnout also heavily driven by the property tax amendment? I would certainly say so.
The point being - to say that the turnout was based on a protest vote does not hold water given the state constitutional amendment that was also on the ballot.

by GrahamCracker 2008-05-22 08:00PM | 0 recs
Ah ha! You all fell for ruse!

When Hillary said their votes wouldn't count she was only buying time to build her invincible voter enfranchisement suit of iron!

I mean irony!

by luckymortal 2008-05-22 08:02PM | 0 recs
Re: It's DEMOCRACY Stupid!

seems simple and doesn't change a thing as far as facts, we all know about the votes having taken place, we can each make up our own minds about all the votes, not just those.  We can think.  We don''t need to be told what to think.  

by anna shane 2008-05-22 08:57PM | 0 recs
Obligatory for Alegre's diaries...

by ragekage 2008-05-22 09:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Obligatory for Alegre's diaries...

Now you have to post a fail picture for your attempt at posting a fail picture.

by map 2008-05-22 09:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Obligatory for Alegre's diaries...

Attempt? Why? It worked beautifully.

by ragekage 2008-05-22 09:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Obligatory for Alegre's diaries...

I just see a red x.  hmmm.

by map 2008-05-22 09:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Obligatory for Alegre's diaries...

Odd, it shows up fine for me.

by ragekage 2008-05-22 09:11PM | 0 recs
by ragekage 2008-05-22 09:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Obligatory for Alegre's diaries...

Thanks :) And awesome.

by map 2008-05-22 09:20PM | 0 recs
Re: It's DEMOCRACY Stupid!

Told you after tuesday you won't be able to tell the snarkers from the true Clinton supporters.

by Hillarywillwin 2008-05-22 09:27PM | 0 recs
Absolutely disgusting. . .

. . . the basis for this suit appears to be the disenfranchisement of minorities in Florida, and it relies on the Voting Rights Act - something that ALL Democrats can agree is one of the most important laws of the 20th century.  How anyone - especially a candidate for the Democratic Party's nomination in this presidential race - could argue against including all votes is beyond me.

This argument and the accompanying lawsuit is simply despicable.  Increase in voter turnout in both Michigan and Florida was the lowest in the country in comparison to the increases in every other primary in 2008.  People stayed home in Michigan and Florida.  In Florida there was a PROPERTY TAX initiative on the ballot.  Those who don't own property (read, poor and disproportionately minorities) had NO INCENTIVE to vote and were told their votes would not count in the primary.  To then turn around and attempt to have the votes counted as is DISENFRACHISES those minorities that did not vote in the unsanctioned contest.  That law suit is disgusting and offensive on its face.

The fact that you tote that we should be behind it should get you banned from a progressive site.  You have no idea how offensive you are being right now.

by shalca 2008-05-22 09:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Nice Video

OMG.

by interestedbystander 2008-05-22 09:32PM | 0 recs
Wow, talk about Ground Hog's day!

Okay, let's see here.  First, we have the sanctimonious lecture about 'how every vote should count'!  In other words, if you disagree with Alegre...well, clearly you MUST want to disenfranchise so many voters and CLEARLY you must not remember the incredible struggle of Susan B. Anthony and other suffragettes!

This is incredibly disingenuous.  Hilariously disingenuous.  I mean, you must think there's a sucker born everyday!

I tell you what, I will personally GIVE $10 to a revote fund.  No ifs, ands or buts about it.

You wanna be fair?  Let's have a revote.

You wanna 'bend the rules' to suit your candidate?  Uh, that is precisely what you're espousing BUT trying to cloak it in historical, grandstanding, struggle-to-get-our-voices heard prose.

Whatever the subject, start out with grandiose statements about equity, struggle, the fight for fairness, then devolve into something that inevitably favors HRC and slams BO...but of course, keeping it grandiose and righteously indignant as we remember the (true) struggles of prior trailblazers.

I can see why people think you're a paid blogger.

By the way, I think BO 'played the clock' on Michigan and Florida...so he's no saint on this either.

THe TRUE fair thing to do would be a revote.  Plain and simple.  However, I know and YOU KNOW that a revote would simply put BO over the top in terms of pledged delegates.  

But, hey, to quote Alegre herself:

'if it helps you sleep at night'

knock yourself sleepy with righteous indignation about how these poor disenfranchised voters are being cast aside!!!!!!!!!!!!

Couldn't they simply revote?  Uh, yeah they could.  But at this point, HRC wants nothing to do with that.

Oh, and a bit of a preemptive strike: yes, I did read the diary.

by yankeeinmemphis 2008-05-22 09:44PM | 0 recs
TR ABUSER

This commentM is perfectly within the MyDD guidelines. Troll rating it was an abuse of your privilidges. You should correct your error or be known by all as a TR ABUSER.

I will not respond in kind, even though it would be just and the easiest thing to do

by Freespeechzone 2008-05-22 09:54PM | 0 recs
Re: It's DEMOCRACY Stupid!

Rec'd

by mztower 2008-05-22 10:05PM | 0 recs
Sigh...again...sigh

Please, first of all....

Ah forget it, everyone else has already pointed out that nothing you state is supported by fact or reality.

Hope that redraft of the boycott/GBCW diary for MyDD is coming along well, you'll be needing it soon.  If I was a betting man Id say youve got about a 1.5 to 2 week window of delusion left here (assuming this place stays true to its ideals) if your tone doesnt change and your diaries stay like the garbage you have been putting out lately.  But you will of course still be loved and accepted at Hillaryis44/Taylor Marsh/No Quarter with open arms.  They will keep cheering you on while you keep sliding off the rationality rails into deeper delusional Clinton support.

And by the way, I sleep awesome at night because reason and fact are on my side.  Its nice when you dont have to do anything but sit quietly and be right.  Makes life wonderful.  I may be impatient and hope June 4 gets here tomorrow, but I still know what June 4 will look like and I dont lose a wink of sleep.

Again, were always willing to meet halfway, hope to see you soon.

by pattonbt 2008-05-22 10:22PM | 0 recs
Re: It's DEMOCRACY Stupid!

When you start to make arguments that are plain factually wrong, not only does your tip jar need to be hide rated, but the article should be deleted.

Hillary did not stand behind the voters of Michigan and Florida when it counted.  Once the contest began and the states decided to break the rules the penalties applied.  Hillary did not lift a finger (even convince one of the 12 members of the rules and bylaws committee) to stop the sanctions against MI and FL.  To say otherwise is counter to fact.

These facts are not pliable, you cannot spin a fact.  Clinton, in fact, did nothing to help MI and FL when it counted.  To be fair, Obama didn't either, he just abided with the rules that eveyone agreed to before any votes were cast.

Whatever they do now will not "fix" this election.  No amount of handwringing or spin will make these free and fair elections.  

The only remaining answer is that it will be up to the DNC to decide by this thing.  Taking this nomination it's logical conclusion, by which I mean whomever has enough delegates wins.

I do agree with one point though, this will determine what sort of party we want to be.

Are we the party that believs regulation (rules) should be followed (do we believe in the rule of law), or are we going to allow people to convince us to abandon the rules we have set when it is politically epexient to them (and become an unlaful society)?

Your answer to this question will be very telling.

by Why Not 2008-05-22 10:50PM | 0 recs
Re: It's DEMOCRACY Stupid!

Citing No Quarter?  They of the famous "I call a spade a spade" front-page posts?

http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/05/07/ i-call-a-spade-a-spade/

And when Pagan Power posted here, he or she initially tried to deny that they were the same Pagan Power that posted that hateful diary.

What's next?  Stormfront?

by bosdcla14 2008-05-22 10:56PM | 0 recs
This offer not good in Michigan

The Clinton campaign insists on recognizing the will of the voter -- except in Michigan, where it was plainly not the will of the voter to give Obama zero votes.

by TL 2008-05-23 03:26AM | 0 recs
Re: It's DEMOCRACY Stupid!

First of all, as Kevin Kline would say in A Fish Called Wanda, "don't call me stupid".

Second, it's very disingenuous for Clinton to be pushing this when her campaign agreed to these rules.

Finally, why didn't DNC just cut Michigan and Florida's delegates in half like the Republicans did?  This seems to me like it would have been a fair penalty.  The votes still count, however, they only get half their delegates.  Wouldn't this have avoid this mess?

by chewie5656 2008-05-23 03:52AM | 0 recs
Re: It's DEMOCRACY Stupid! (Updated)

another Proxy Diary for Hilis44 and no quarter....
(just check her usual Rec's)

an open challenge to alegre..

I dare you to post a diary depending ONLY on regular commenters here at MyDD..

You know like the rest of us do

C'mon if you are so popular..

Didn't think so

by nogo postal 2008-05-23 04:03AM | 0 recs
Re: It's DEMOCRACY Stupid! (Updated)

Since all the other states played fair what punishment do you think FL and MI should get? How do you stop from disenfranchising those states that played by the rules?

Also, unless you have a crystal ball, I suggest that one should refrain from phrases as "certain failure" in regards to Obama... and then of course be "shocked" at the vitriol.

by Zotnix 2008-05-23 04:46AM | 0 recs
Perhaps

You should go to borders and buy a few books on American Democracy.  And then, you know, READ THEM.

Because if we did the one man = one vote thing then lots of stuff wouldn't have happened, like, desegregation because as far as I know there were more people opposed to that than for it at the time and other forms of civil rights and good stuff I thought Dems liked to fight for.  And also if you're from a smaller state you get screwed like an SUV drivo

We pledge allegiance "to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic" -- not to the democracy, but to the Republic -- "for which it stands." We operate by democratic processes.  -- but we do not live in a pure democracy. This is a Republic. We ought to get it straight.

The desperation is really, really sad at this point.  You're only embarrassing yourself at this point.

by lollydee 2008-05-23 06:16AM | 0 recs
Re: It's DEMOCRACY Stupid! (Updated)

Indeed, it is democracy, stupid.  And part of democracy isn't just counting the votes -- it's also about allowing the voters to choose the best candidate.  That is why the candidates signed a pledge saying that IA, NH, NV, and SC should have first-in-the-nation status.  As Mark Shields writes:

All four states are small enough that an underdog, underfinanced candidate who is not a household name -- with ideas, energy and appeal -- can break through and connect. In big states, where paid television advertising is the primary means by which candidates communicate with voters, the advantage goes to the candidate with the biggest campaign treasury and greatest name recognition.

In short, we want to give a Chris Dodd, a Mike Huckabee, and a Joe Biden a good shot at the nomination.  That is why the DNC stripped FL and MI of its delegates and rightly so.

Now if the DNC reinstates the FL and MI delegations in full and in accordance to their violative January primaries, IA and NH will lose first-in-the-nation status, and the retail politics that we've come to know and love will end.  There will be no more opportunites for breakthroughs for some lesser-known, underfinanced, underdog candidate such as Chris Dodd or Mike Huckabee.  Instead, name recognition and television will dominate.

There have to be consequences for breaking the rules.  Seat the delegations 50-50 with a 50% penalty.  Allow the superdelegates to vote.  That's the only way order can be preserved for future primaries.

by Brad G 2008-05-23 06:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Question, alegre

How is there a constitutional right to vote in a primary when Florida is allowed to exclude Republicans and Independents as they did in their January closed Democratic Primary?

by Brad G 2008-05-23 06:22AM | 0 recs
Re: It's DEMOCRACY Stupid! (Updated)

Democracy means seating the delegates in FL and MI just as the other 3 states that moved their primaries up.

by LA 2008-05-23 06:55AM | 0 recs
Re: It's DEMOCRACY Stupid! (Updated)

The other three states did not jump order and the move was sanctioned by the DNC.

by map 2008-05-23 07:32AM | 0 recs
Republicans cut delagates in half and no complaint

Hillary Clinton is full of crap. And Hillary supporters eat that crap because they legitimatly root for who they feel is the best availble canidate. I respect the Hillary supporters but I dont respect the principal of hypocrisy. Obama has his own hypocrisy to deal with he is by no means a saint. Unfortunetly Hillary's losing delagate position lasting for months has driven her further into desperation than Obama. She has compromised objectivity and logic for spin and her supporters have done the same to support her. I hope Hillary supporters dont take the spin seriously even if you want your guy to win. America comes before our canidates. If republicans are doing well and democrats suck i figure we gotta do whats right for America. America needs honest leaders we need to hold there feet to the fire no matter what. We need honest leaders in good times in and bad when they are up in the poles and down. This movment is not legitimate, its born of a persons ambition not genuine outrage. If Obama won those states trust me they would not be talking about now would they.

by edtastic 2008-05-23 07:10AM | 0 recs
Re: It's DEMOCRACY Stupid! (Updated)

Hillary and her DNC operatives pushed through the rules that she agreed to.  Those rules were fine with HRC at the beginning of the race, and were not considered "disenfranchisement" then.

This change in attitude seems a little disingenuous and self-serving, don't you think?  It appears that HRC is trying to change the rules at the end of the game because she's losing.

Not gonna happen.

http://hillaryis404.org

by baghdadjoe 2008-05-23 07:22AM | 0 recs
Remember when?

"We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process.

And we believe the DNC's rules and its calendar provide the necessary structure to respect and honor that role.

Thus, we will be signing the pledge to adhere to the DNC approved nominating calendar."

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/relea se/view/?id=3134

by quixote27 2008-05-23 08:39AM | 0 recs
Re: It's DEMOCRACY Stupid! (Updated)
Is it your intent with this diary to suggest: "...this is about voting rights and if you can't see that then there's no helping you." OR is it your intent with this diary: "You know what to do. HELP HILLARY FIGHT ON - CONTRIBUTENOW! " ? Are these intents the same thing? You make valid arguments about your candidates strengths in some swing states, but these arguments linking voters rights to Hillary's fight (a fight to win a political competition) are disturbing. Would you be framing your points in this manner if counting the votes and delegates as they occured did not support the continuation of your candidate's campaign? Do you acknowledge that and if so please help me understand how this is fair and not appropriation in the worst sense? Many see a manufactured integration of Hillary's campaign with voters rights. This is a charge that has been rightly aimed at you, and your candidate, though not always in a sincere manner. It is a charge that you should face up to and refute.
by Iago 2008-05-23 08:52AM | 0 recs
I can see it!

SHE'S on the side of full inclusion - he's talking about cutting their votes in half or splitting things down the middle (contrary to the expressed wishes of the voters).

Verily, 'tis the TRUTH!  Sure, Hillary signed off on penalizing the wayward states of MI and FL but had SHE KNOWN that she would be losing the nomination, she might have raised a protest sooner.  She has shown the same level of judgement and duplicity that we can expect from a liar fighter.  Go Hill, let not truth, facts, ethical considerations dissuade you.  It is your birthright!

To the distupters here I've got one thing to say... this is about voting rights and if you can't see that then there's no helping you.

Yes, sweet Jaysus, I can see!  Take me to the Hillary promise land!

by obscurant 2008-05-23 09:58AM | 0 recs
Go Alegre! Use that TR!

Alegre, you have to TR everyone who disagrees with you.  Otherwise, they win!  

God, I love me some Hillary.  She's the best.  And she's going to win!   She's a fighter, yes she is!

See the sig line, donate to my gal!   You know what to do, people, get in line!

by obscurant 2008-05-23 10:06AM | 0 recs
Dear Alegre, PLEASE RESPOND

We have the following quote from HILLARY CLINTON's CAMPAIGN:

"We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process.

And we believe the DNC's rules and its calendar provide the necessary structure to respect and honor that role.

Thus, we will be signing the pledge to adhere to the DNC approved nominating calendar."

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/relea se/view/?id=3134

How does this jive at with the 1000 words of unadultered cow poo you just posted?

by FinneganOregon 2008-05-23 10:12AM | 0 recs
Obama will win Michigan

He has always polled better in MI than Hillary does.

Your tone is really ugly, Allegre.  It's pathetic that you would try to use your influence here to purposely divide us into to warring factions.  Especially when you claim that only you and your "followers" are the Democrats and if we disagree with your views, we should get out.

Doesn't exactly sound like democracy in action to me.

And in case you didn't read the diarist from MI who was on the rec list all day yesterday.  It would be equally as undemocratic to seat all of the delegates from MI in full, giving Obama 0 delegates in a state where he has a lot support.  It's picking and choosing the votes you want to keep and the votes you don't.

EVEN if it were true that Obama somehow blocked a revote (though no proof of this has ever been offered), it is still undemocratic to refuse him the right of a fair election where he is on the ballot.  The insinuation that he somehow has forfeited his rights in our democracy, to a fair and equatable election is beyond unreasonable.

by Tenafly Viper 2008-05-23 10:23AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads