Memphis coach, fans call for new rule to apply retroactively

Just in over the wire...

Calipari suggests new rule be applied retroactively, giving Memphis win

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tags: John Calipari, NCAA, Primary 2008, snark (all tags)

Comments

174 Comments

so funny

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

by njsketch 2008-04-08 08:12AM | 0 recs
You don't like it?

I'm hurt!

by Bob Johnson 2008-04-08 08:13AM | 0 recs
Re: You don't like it?
Oh, he'll change his mind at about 3 o'clock this morning.
Take your phone off the hook. Why screw up a good night's sleep to get a retraction from someone on a board that supports the Queen of Reject and Renounce?
by kestrel9000 2008-04-08 08:16AM | 0 recs
Re: You don't like it?

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

by anujtron 2008-04-08 09:53AM | 0 recs
Humor

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

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

by toyomama 2008-04-08 01:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Humor

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

by JDF 2008-04-09 07:00AM | 0 recs
Re: You don't like it?
nice diary, Bob. I would tip and rec you, but I'm on some sort of probation.
by power of truth 2008-04-08 10:21AM | 0 recs
Double-secret, no doubt.

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

by Bob Johnson 2008-04-08 10:25AM | 0 recs
Mojo for

Animal House quote.

by GFORD 2008-04-08 11:32AM | 0 recs
Re: You don't like it?

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

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

by bosdcla14 2008-04-09 09:39AM | 0 recs
the metaphor goes both ways

Obama is Memphis not Nashville.

Or did you not realize what a straight man does?

by debcoop 2008-04-08 09:25PM | 0 recs
Re: so funny

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

by rfahey22 2008-04-08 08:18AM | 0 recs
Re: so funny

LOL

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

by ragekage 2008-04-08 08:18AM | 0 recs
Actually...

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

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

by Democratic Unity 2008-04-08 08:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Actually...

Yes, we've definitely noticed the cocky part.

by Denny Crane 2008-04-08 05:03PM | 0 recs
Re: so funny

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

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

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

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

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

by Jon Winkleman 2008-04-09 01:37PM | 0 recs
Hilarious

Hillary supporters, there's a lesson here:

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

by Democratic Unity 2008-04-08 08:16AM | 0 recs
Hold up

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

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

by Trickster 2008-04-08 12:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Hold up

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

by bookish 2008-04-08 03:06PM | 0 recs
the metaphor works the other way too

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

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

by debcoop 2008-04-08 09:27PM | 0 recs
Re: the metaphor works the other way too

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

by kasjogren 2008-04-09 08:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Memphis coach, fans call for new rule to apply

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

by Obama Independent 2008-04-08 08:16AM | 0 recs
Bob once wrote a whole diary at dkos

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

by TeresaINPennsylvania 2008-04-08 08:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Bob once wrote a whole diary at dkos

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

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner 2008-04-08 08:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Bob once wrote a whole diary at dkos

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

by JDF 2008-04-09 07:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Bob once wrote a whole diary at dkos

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

by Mostly 2008-04-09 07:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Bob once wrote a whole diary at dkos

cruel attention getting and juvenile?

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

by IowaMike 2008-04-08 11:31AM | 0 recs
It's a humorous response to...

... this diary, below.

by Bob Johnson 2008-04-08 08:20AM | 0 recs
Re: It's a humorous response to...

oh snap

by minnesotaryan 2008-04-08 08:56PM | 0 recs
and it's a pretty good one

similar concept:

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

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

by Mobar 2008-04-09 09:41AM | 0 recs
people's votes are more important

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

by TeresaINPennsylvania 2008-04-08 08:17AM | 0 recs
*sniff*

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

by Bob Johnson 2008-04-08 08:19AM | 0 recs
Re: *sniff*

I have no doubt you will go on being unfunny.

by TeresaINPennsylvania 2008-04-08 08:21AM | 0 recs
Re: *sniff*

I see soitgoes is TR abusing again.

by interestedbystander 2008-04-08 09:40AM | 0 recs
Admins take note!

TR abuse.

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-04-08 12:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Admins take note!

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

by JenKinFLA 2008-04-08 12:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Admins take note!

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

by Skaje 2008-04-08 12:27PM | 0 recs
Re: people's votes are more important

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

by ragekage 2008-04-08 08:20AM | 0 recs
they didn't

you missed the point.  I am not surprised.

by TeresaINPennsylvania 2008-04-08 08:22AM | 0 recs
by ragekage 2008-04-08 08:23AM | 0 recs
Read it again and you will understand

what that diary meant

by indus 2008-04-08 07:12PM | 0 recs
Now Bob

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


Also, a campaign for POTUS is not a game.

by linc 2008-04-08 08:22AM | 0 recs
Heh.

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

by Bob Johnson 2008-04-08 08:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Now Bob

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

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

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner 2008-04-08 08:48AM | 0 recs
Same goes for the Bible.

And polls.

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

by Bob Johnson 2008-04-08 08:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Now Bob

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

Is that art?

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner 2008-04-08 09:05AM | 0 recs
I think it's redundancy...

... over and over.

by Bob Johnson 2008-04-08 09:11AM | 0 recs
Re: I think it's redundancy...

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

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner 2008-04-08 09:14AM | 0 recs
I've told you a million times,

stop exaggerating!

by rb608 2008-04-09 07:13AM | 0 recs
Redundant AND repetetive! ;) n/t

by Elsinora 2008-04-08 11:57AM | 0 recs
You can say THAT again.

by Bob Johnson 2008-04-08 12:00PM | 0 recs
Redundant AND repetitive! ;) n/t

by Elsinora 2008-04-08 12:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Redundant AND repetitive! ;) n/t

Very nice sig, by the by :)

by minnesotaryan 2008-04-08 08:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Now Bob

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

by bookish 2008-04-09 11:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Memphis coach, fans call for new rule

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

by rfahey22 2008-04-08 08:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Brilliantly Caustic Allegory

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

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner 2008-04-08 09:14AM | 0 recs
More mis/disinformation.

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

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

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

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

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

by Bob Johnson 2008-04-08 04:11PM | 0 recs
Re: More mis/disinformation.

And what about all those voter's who:

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

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

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

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

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

Sorry. I'll troll myself for snark.  

by brit 2008-04-09 03:57AM | 0 recs
Obama fans disrupt unity again

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

by pollbuster 2008-04-08 09:26AM | 0 recs
Okay.

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

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

But we all have our own feelings!

by Bob Johnson 2008-04-08 09:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Okay.

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

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

But we all have our own feelings!

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

by pollbuster 2008-04-08 09:59AM | 0 recs
Hey, folks will take it...

... the way they want to take it.

You're offended. I get it.

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

by Bob Johnson 2008-04-08 10:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Hey, folks will take it...

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

by pollbuster 2008-04-08 11:05AM | 0 recs
Humor is part of America!

Isn't it?

by Bob Johnson 2008-04-08 11:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Humor is part of America!

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

by ragekage 2008-04-08 08:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama fans disrupt unity again

Oh, wahhhh.

If you can't take a joke...

by bookish 2008-04-08 10:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama fans disrupt unity again

c'mon,

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

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

by wrb 2008-04-08 02:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Memphis coach said

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

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

by ajleiker 2008-04-08 09:38AM | 0 recs
Umm...

by Bob Johnson 2008-04-08 10:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Memphis coach, fans call for new rule to apply

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

Can this happen again?

by STUBALL 2008-04-08 10:35AM | 0 recs
But for that analogy to be appropriate to this

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

by Bob Johnson 2008-04-08 10:40AM | 0 recs
Re: But for that analogy to be appropriate to this

Not quite.

by jaydub799 2008-04-08 12:00PM | 0 recs
Re: But for that analogy to be appropriate to this

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

by fogiv 2008-04-08 01:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Memphis coach, fans call for new rule to apply

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

by IowaMike 2008-04-08 11:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Memphis coach, fans call for new rule to apply

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

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

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

by jaydub799 2008-04-08 12:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Memphis coach, fans call for new rule to apply

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

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

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

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

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

by IowaMike 2008-04-08 12:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Memphis coach, fans call for new rule to apply

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

by JenKinFLA 2008-04-08 12:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Memphis coach, fans call for new rule to apply

That's a classic, Bob.

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

by bookish 2008-04-08 10:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Memphis coach, fans call for new rule to apply

Nice

by hootie4170 2008-04-08 10:43AM | 0 recs
I see a flaw here.

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

by Scan 2008-04-08 11:35AM | 0 recs
'Sacred right'

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

by Bob Johnson 2008-04-08 12:01PM | 0 recs
Re: 'Sacred right'
Oh damn, that would've been a good ad... Memphis claiming that free throw shooting wasn't a good indicator of basketball ability, or who passed the "national championship test" since they work differently. And that Memphis was really bad at them. Coincidentally. Of course.
by Rorgg 2008-04-08 12:04PM | 0 recs
Re: I see a flaw here.

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

I couldn't agree more!

by jaydub799 2008-04-08 12:08PM | 0 recs
Don't forget that snark tag! n/t

by SluggoJD 2008-04-08 12:03PM | 0 recs
Snark?! Nonsense!

Calipari is a whiner!

by Bob Johnson 2008-04-08 12:04PM | 0 recs
ha ha

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

by owl06 2008-04-08 12:06PM | 0 recs
He's a liar!

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

Neither do I!

by Bob Johnson 2008-04-08 12:07PM | 0 recs
LOL!

Good one.

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-04-08 12:16PM | 0 recs
Re: ha ha

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

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

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

Yuck.

by jaydub799 2008-04-08 12:13PM | 0 recs
Exactly!

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

by Bob Johnson 2008-04-08 12:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Exactly!

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

by Trickster 2008-04-08 12:40PM | 0 recs
The delegations won't take the seats if offered?

Really? Where do you get that?

by Bob Johnson 2008-04-08 12:51PM | 0 recs
Re: The delegations

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

by Trickster 2008-04-08 01:06PM | 0 recs
Want to bet?

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

by Bob Johnson 2008-04-08 01:10PM | 0 recs
Re: The delegations

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

by Koan 2008-04-08 01:45PM | 0 recs
Re:

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

by jaydub799 2008-04-08 01:08PM | 0 recs
Same thing I noted to Trickster, above:

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

by Bob Johnson 2008-04-08 01:23PM | 0 recs
Too bad they didn't follow, you know,

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

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-04-08 12:18PM | 0 recs
Re: ha ha

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

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

by JenKinFLA 2008-04-08 12:28PM | 0 recs
Re: ha ha

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

by jaydub799 2008-04-08 12:32PM | 0 recs
Where were the Clinton camp complaints about...

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

Why all the complaining after the fact?

by Bob Johnson 2008-04-08 12:35PM | 0 recs
Snark is one thing

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

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

by Trickster 2008-04-08 12:42PM | 0 recs
Never happened?

Did Camp Clinton protest the DNC actions at the time?

by Bob Johnson 2008-04-08 12:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Never happened?

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

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

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

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

- Hillary wrote the rules about who would be seated

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

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

by Trickster 2008-04-08 12:56PM | 0 recs
C'mon...

Clinton Defends Michigan Ballot Stand

Clinton says of Michigan in this article:

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

...

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

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

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

And this...

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

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

by Bob Johnson 2008-04-08 01:06PM | 0 recs
Is that all you've got?

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

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

Which words signify intent?
Which words signify agreement?

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

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

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

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

by Trickster 2008-04-08 01:11PM | 0 recs
Oh, so now it's about what she

... meant, not what she said.

She said:

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

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

Is that it?

by Bob Johnson 2008-04-08 01:18PM | 0 recs
Back up, hoss

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

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

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

by Trickster 2008-04-08 01:37PM | 0 recs
Dodge.

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

And, yes, she is directly contradicting herself.

by Bob Johnson 2008-04-08 01:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Dodge.

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

by Trickster 2008-04-08 02:30PM | 0 recs
She says Michigan won't count.

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

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

by Bob Johnson 2008-04-08 04:35PM | 0 recs
Re: She says Michigan won't count.

Nice try Mr. Rove with your selective editing.

What Hillary said was;

This Obamabot quote selectively referring to an October 11, 2007 interview with New Hampshire NPR. She noted that the election scheduled for Michigan would not "count" under the current DNC rules. But she added this, explaining why she kept her name on the ballot:

I did not believe it was fair to just say goodbye Michigan and not take into account the fact that we're going to have to win Michigan if we're going to be in the White House in January 2009.

Hillary has been stressing the importance of voters of Michigan for months. It's time for Obama to do the right thing for the Democratic party and join her. It has always been well within the rules to come up with a formula to seat the delegation, including credentials and rules fights at the convention. It is true that Obama fears the voters from Michigan and Florida and consistently has urinated on them and blocked efforts to seat the delegation, with new elections or other totally acceptable formulas.

It is an absolute lie and misrepresentation of the truth, this whole obamadoid talking point. I am shocked, shocked they lie about Hillary. this whole debacle has Donna "The Shrill" Brazile's fingerprints all over it. She is a worthless Obama tool.

by Newport News Dem 2008-04-09 05:57AM | 0 recs
Re: She says Michigan won't count.

Hide rated for...well...a lot.

"Mr. Rove"
"Obamabot"
"Obamaboid"
and referring to Brazile as "The Shrill" since using that term against any other woman would be considered sexist.

by bookish 2008-04-09 11:35AM | 0 recs
Re: She says Michigan won't count.
True, but I bet that person meant "shill" rather than "shrill". But perhaps it was a Freudian typo.
by sricki 2008-04-09 02:21PM | 0 recs
Re: She says Michigan won't count.

Well, maybe, except the "r" is nowhere near the other letters in that word.

by bookish 2008-04-09 03:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Never happened?

From a rather prescient Salon article by Walter Shapiro:

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

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

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

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

by bookish 2008-04-09 11:41AM | 0 recs
And I nearly missed this one

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

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

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

by bookish 2008-04-09 11:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Snark is one thing

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

by Darknesse 2008-04-08 07:56PM | 0 recs
Huh?

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

by 1950democrat 2008-04-08 09:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Where were the Clinton camp

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

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

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

by jaydub799 2008-04-08 12:47PM | 0 recs
Where were the Clinton camp objections to the

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

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

by Bob Johnson 2008-04-08 12:50PM | 0 recs
Why do you ask?

What rule says they had to react instantly?

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

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

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

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

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

by Trickster 2008-04-08 01:00PM | 0 recs
See my response to you, upthread.

Clinton states:

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

It doesn't get much more clear than that.

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

by Bob Johnson 2008-04-08 01:09PM | 0 recs
I notice you're totally avoiding these questions

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

by Trickster 2008-04-08 01:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Why do you ask?

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

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

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

by rfahey22 2008-04-08 01:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Why do you ask?

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

by Newport News Dem 2008-04-09 06:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Why do you ask?

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

by Darknesse 2008-04-09 06:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Where were the Clinton camp objections to the

Your point is well taken.

Sometimes you do go with the flow though when it seems like it doesn't matter.  (No, I'm not talking about Hillary inevitability.  I referring to the fact that nominations are usually won handily by the ultimate nominee)

But the answer to your direct question is:  I don't know.  Honestly, no candidate should have agreed to boycott MI and FL.    

IMHO.

by jaydub799 2008-04-08 01:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Where were the Clinton camp

Oh so, the DNC should have said, don't break the rules or there will be consequences, unless it is a really close primary and then there won't be consequences...?

Given the GOP narrative that says the Democrats are wish-washy has been bought by a lot of voters, how obvious do you want to make that in an election year?

by JenKinFLA 2008-04-08 12:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Where were the Clinton camp

The closeness of the election is just showing what an unreasonable and unnecessary sanction they imposed.

Why do you think the DNC has even bothered trying to come up with a solution at all.

If they really felt their decision was a sound one they wouldn't even be talking about it.

by jaydub799 2008-04-08 12:58PM | 0 recs
Re: ha ha

Ok, for the quadrillionth time...  we were not disenfranchised.  I helped elect a mayor and voted against an issue that passed anyway.  My vote for both of those things counted.  And I was able to vote.  So I was not disenfranchised.

But so help me, I'm making a mental list of people who had damn well better be outraged when SCOTUS votes on the Indiana voter i.d. law that will disenfranchise people for real.  Not that I will do anything with it, but I will make a mental list...

Ahem...  Bob, good work.  None of this silliness is worth anything if we can't laugh at it once in a while.

by JenKinFLA 2008-04-08 12:18PM | 0 recs
Re: ha ha

I agree.  The States Governments in Michigan and Florida held an election for its citizens.

It was a fair election.  In Florida all candidates were on the ballot and in Michigan all candidates qualified to be on the ballot.  Some candidates decided they didn't want the votes of Michiganians, and withdrew from our ballot.  That's their ass.

When it was all fun and games at the beginning and the Party had not had to actually utilize all of these arcane nominating rules in many years it seemed acceptable to "punish" two states for holding their elections early.

Now that it does matter, we need to work that much harder to make sure that nobody is left out.  If it didn't matter it wouldn't even be a topic of conversation right now.

MI/FL were protesting the DNC and their smug favoritism towards Iowa and New Hampshire year after year.  

After this election some serious changes are going to have to be made, and simpler rules where everyone votes and the winner wins, is what I'm hoping for.

by jaydub799 2008-04-08 12:41PM | 0 recs
Now you're getting the point of my diary!

After this election some serious changes are going to have to be made, and simpler rules where everyone votes and the winner wins, is what I'm hoping for.

Instead of trying to go back and change the rules retroactively.

by Bob Johnson 2008-04-08 12:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Now you're getting the point of my diary!

But THIS election has some issues in play and some people are not going to be happy because the Party has ridiculous rules contrary to Democratic Principles.

Because of the rules, there is going to be a huge chunk of people unhappy with whichever outcome plays out with MI & FL.

I'm not calling for any kind of retroactive changing of the rules.  Just saying that 35 million people in two major states need to be involved with the decision, one way or the other.

by jaydub799 2008-04-08 01:14PM | 0 recs
They will be.

Their delegations will be seated.

by Bob Johnson 2008-04-08 01:15PM | 0 recs
Re: They will be.

As long as it is based on the results of an election then fine.

Any sort of bizarre 50/50 split is totally unacceptable.

We shall see how it plays out.

by jaydub799 2008-04-08 01:28PM | 0 recs
Re: They will be.

Their delegations will be seated -- without counting  their votes toward the nomination? Or counting them after their votes have been arbitrarily changed to 50-50 or some such number ?

by 1950democrat 2008-04-08 08:56PM | 0 recs
Re: They will be.

Seated, as is....and voting as is, and I hope I can grab some memorial

"Uncommitted/Rendell" 2008"

signs from the Michigan delegation!! Surely a valuable collector's item!

Of course, by then, enough super-delegates will have come out for Obama, and enough will have switched from Clinton to Obama, that it won't matter.

Gone and forgotten, along with this phony outrage of MI and FL, and the rest of the sturm und drang of "states that don't matter, caucuses are unfair, yada-yada-yada"

.....gone, except for residual echoes at Taylor Marsh, No Quarter, and the rest of the "Hillary Grief Recovery" websites....

by WashStateBlue 2008-04-09 02:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Now you're getting the point of my diary!

But those aren't states that matter.

However, I think the baskets Michigan made during warmups should be counted. It is only Kansas's fault that they sat and looked at stuff on some whiteboard.

What are these "rules" that people claim determine the start of the game?  They are over ruled by our democratic principles!

by wrb 2008-04-08 03:15PM | 0 recs
I smell panic over The One's popular vote

Well at least you can pretend to have fun. We'll play along.

by catfish1 2008-04-08 12:50PM | 0 recs
Put your shoes back on.

I bet the smell goes away.

by Bob Johnson 2008-04-08 01:07PM | 0 recs
I'm rubber you're glue OMG!

For your sake I hope you're as high as you sound!

by catfish1 2008-04-08 01:12PM | 0 recs
Re: I smell panic over The One's popular vote

You're not serious are you? From whence is she going to pick 800K in votes if Pennsylvania and NC cancel each other out? Trust me, no one is worried about her picking up the popular vote.

by brimur 2008-04-08 04:35PM | 0 recs
Re: I smell panic over The One's popular vote

Puerto Rico.  Hillary Clinton has a shot at netting greater part of a million voters when they hold their primary.

At that point, anyone with half a brain will make the point that by going by the popular vote, you're saying that Puerto Rico, which doesn't even vote for president, is more important than Minnesota, Washington, New Mexico, Nevada, and Iowa combined.

At least I think that's what camp Clinton is up to.  Otherwise, I don't see much chance in the popular vote lead changing.  Besides, the whole argument is another way of saying "caucuses don't count".

by Mostly 2008-04-09 12:10AM | 0 recs
I understand

I understand this is supposed to be snark, just wanted to point out:

1.  Pledged delegates does not equal delegates = the rules

  1.  Superdelegates use whatever metric they choose = the rules
  2.  Possible revotes in MI/FL or revisitation of seating Michigan/Florida delegations = the rules

Not really sure what else to say...

by DaveOinSF 2008-04-08 01:43PM | 0 recs
Re: I understand

I suppose you could say that the NCAA always reserves the right to change the rules of college basketball, and to invalidate those results, too.  I mean, everything's relative in the grand scheme of things; that doesn't mean we can't draw certain lines in the sand.

by rfahey22 2008-04-08 02:04PM | 0 recs
Re: I understand

No.  I am saying that the rules of the Democratic primary nominating process include provisions for the reexamination of the status of MI and FL and for superdelegates to use whatever metric they choose to cast their vote.  Those are the rules.  

To say we cannot reevaluate the status of MI/FL and that superdelegates must ignore popular vote and weigh only pledged delegates would be to change the rules.

by DaveOinSF 2008-04-08 02:29PM | 0 recs
Re: I understand

Exactly. It is the Obama camp that is trying to CHANGE the rules -- which currently are as you said. There are several paths in the rules for reversing Brazile's personal judgement and/or lightening the penalty. And for the Supers to use their own judgement without being pinned to ANY metric -- IS the current rule.

Any time there is a 'punishment' issue -- there's also appeal to a review body and clemency within the rule system.

by 1950democrat 2008-04-08 03:26PM | 0 recs
Re: I understand

Why is everyone pinning this on Donna Brazile?  Harold Ickes had just as much a role in the unseating of the two states.

Matter of fact, he called that penalty "automatic".

by Mostly 2008-04-09 12:12AM | 0 recs
Re: I understand

I see that I was misreading your comments - my mistake.  But, I don't think that anyone is saying that the current situation will stand through the convention.  The snark isn't entirely spot-on, but it's close enough to get the point across.

by rfahey22 2008-04-08 03:36PM | 0 recs
No, it's not spot on at all

The diarist, an Obama partisan who has written many anti-Hillary diaries, is trying to imply that Hillary's path to the nomination is somehow "changing the rules".  It couldn't be further from the truth.

by DaveOinSF 2008-04-08 05:03PM | 0 recs
Oh, I don't know...

I was mocking the spate of recent diaries that bemoaned the process.

Take linfar's diary yesterday that sat atop the rec list all day. It cited some cockamamie piece about how -- if Dems did not have proportional representation, and, instead had winner-take-all -- Hillary would be the nominee!

It's inanity like that that makes me laugh.

As for Hillary now suddenly being the advocate for Michigan and Florida voters, that also makes me laugh. They only mattered when it became clear that she had zero chance without them, rather than the 5% chance she may have with them.

The irony is also noted in her and her campaign's continual dissing of states she didn't win as "not important," or of her and her campaign's never-ending diatribes aimed at Democrats who participate in caucuses.

Her "Champion of Democracy" act rings a little hollow.

A lot of her after-the-fact "championing" seems a little disingenuous.

by Bob Johnson 2008-04-08 05:17PM | 0 recs
offensive

Now, that's the sort of talk that IS offensive.

by 1950democrat 2008-04-08 09:26PM | 0 recs
Re: No, it's not spot on at all

I guess we'll have to disagree as to how closely the analogy fits the current circumstances.  The larger point is that many people would not view the upending of the current order at the convention as legitimate, and would in fact view that as "changing the rules."  

by rfahey22 2008-04-08 06:20PM | 0 recs
Re: No, it's not spot on at all

But if it's not "changing the rules" then it's not "changing the rules", no matter what anyone says.

by DaveOinSF 2008-04-08 06:44PM | 0 recs
As a Hillary fan....

I value metaphors because they can show up unconscious assumptions and help us deal with them.

Not being a sports fan, I skimmed the basketball post, but I doubt I'd find it offensive.

What I do find objectionable and perhaps offensive, is statements like "many people would not view the upending of the current order at the convention as legitimate, and would in fact view that as "changing the rules."  

Current order? Meaning that if BO goes into the convention with a pledged delegate lead, however small, that is the 'order' that must be maintained by the supers' votes?

Under the DNC rules that have been current since the 1980s, the JOB of the supers is to exercise independent judgement. Saying that their FOLLOWING that current rule is somehow 'CHANGING the rules'.... Well, that combination of assumptions....

by 1950democrat 2008-04-08 09:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Memphis coach, fans call for new rule to apply

And so disenfranchising those who believed in the rules as set down by the DNC and acknowledged by Hillary, and so didn't bother to vote, won't cause huge numbers of fans to decide the sport is corrupt, and no longer worth following?

by wrb 2008-04-08 03:18PM | 0 recs
Poor analogy

What do the rules of college basketball have to do with picking a president?  

by Upstate Dem 2008-04-08 04:40PM | 0 recs
'Picking a president?'

What are you talking about?

by Bob Johnson 2008-04-08 04:44PM | 0 recs
Bob...You are Better Than This

Clever by half, man.  I am sure that you got caught up in the moment, but come on....we all need to get behind whichever candidate becomes the presumptive nominee.  

Shit like this only hurts our ability to do so and fight McCain.

I am a strong Obama guy as we all know, but do us all a favor and issue a Mea Culpa and/or explain yourself.

by a gunslinger 2008-04-08 06:48PM | 0 recs
No, you are better than a comment like that.

Pathetic.

Explain what?

Satire?

Get over it...

by Bob Johnson 2008-04-08 06:51PM | 0 recs
Re: No, you are better than a comment like that.

Explain the satire, and your motivation for issuing it, that's all.

Don't you see that many of the more active Hillary supporters are not going to take such lightly?  Others might find it clever, but that FACT is that eventually we will need support from everyone to beat Johnny Mac.

This diary is counter-productive as it adds another link in the chain that tethers us to our divisions.

Look BobJ, I normally like your posts, I think you missed here, and should offer a better explanation than what is here so far.  You dropped a stink bomb in a crowded room, my friend.  And only YOU can turn on the fan!

by a gunslinger 2008-04-08 07:17PM | 0 recs
Give me a break...

You don't like my post. Got it.

Hilarious...

My suggestion is that you can now buy a sense of humor online. They grow them in petri dishes and ship them flash-frozen overnight, via FedEx.

by Bob Johnson 2008-04-08 07:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Give me a break...

Dude.  I am being reserved and friendly to you here.  Furhtermore, we're on the same side.

I've merely given you some friendly advice, and you are being unrepentantly rude.  Take it or not, but why treat me so shabbily?

by a gunslinger 2008-04-08 07:48PM | 0 recs
See ya'.

by Bob Johnson 2008-04-08 07:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Brilliantly Caustic Allegory

And Calipari signed the same pledge in the other direction.  Calipari was in full agreement with that part until he started losing...

by nwgates 2008-04-08 09:41PM | 0 recs
Dear Kos Kewl Kidz:

We come here to avoid you.  Please stay home, under your rock at Big Orange.  We won't come looking for you, honest.

Peace.

by magnetics 2008-04-08 09:59PM | 0 recs
You'd really like hillaryis44, NoQuarter or

... Taylor Marsh. I mean, if all you want is 24/7 Obama-bashing.

by Bob Johnson 2008-04-09 08:22AM | 0 recs
I don't go there either; my request stands.

by magnetics 2008-04-09 10:36AM | 0 recs
Your request can stand...

... or sit or crawl or swim or dance or even sing.

And it would still be the same, tired, "I-only-want-to-hear-myself" whine that it was when you first posted it.

by Bob Johnson 2008-04-09 10:49AM | 0 recs
Traffic analogy

Leaving out Johnson and some others here ... let's look at what is the best KIND of analogy for this situation.

Mr. Florida-leader is driving his bus full of passengers(voters). Mr. Florida GOP sideswipes him, forcing him out of his lane.

Judge Brazile finds him guilty of an improper lane change and instead of dismissing it as a forced action, or giving the penalty prescribed in the law book -- uses her discretion to impound his bus and put Mr. Florida-leader and the passengers/voters in jail.

The passengers' friends want them out of jail, as  Mr. Florida-leader's 'crime' was certainly not the passengers' fault.

There are several courses THE LAWBOOK SUPPLIES for  asking JUdge Brazile to review her decision, to change or commute the sentence, etc. There are several levels of appeals court that have the power to change it also. None of which is 'changing the rules'.

by 1950democrat 2008-04-08 10:04PM | 0 recs
What's with your obsession with Donna Brazile?

I find it fascinating.

by Bob Johnson 2008-04-09 08:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Memphis coach, fans call for new rule to apply

Mr. Florida-leader is driving his bus full of passengers(voters).

There are no passengers in the bus since no one has voted yet. There will never be passengers in the bus since there will never be a democratic election in either Michigan or Florida.

Mr. Florida GOP sideswipes him, forcing him out of his lane.

Except, for all intents and purposes, Mr. Florida-leader fully cooperates with Mr. Florida GOP's intent to move them out of their lane and even mocked warnings from the police officer (DNC) to right their course.

Judge Brazile finds him guilty of an improper lane change...

Let's stop pretending that this was the decision of one person -- it was a full court of appeals in which Senator Clinton had very close relationship with at least one of the judges (Ickes).

...and instead of dismissing it as a forced action,

You can't produce a single piece of evidence to suggest that Mr. Florida-leader was opposed to the lane-change in any way, shape, or form.

...or giving the penalty prescribed in the law book -- uses her discretion to impound his bus and put Mr. Florida-leader and the passengers/voters in jail.

Yes, the panel of judges had that discretion and used it.

The passengers' friends want them out of jail...

The passengers' friends fully agreed with the ruling of the judges prior to discovering that the passengers owed them money and the only way to collect was to spring them from jail.

...as  Mr. Florida-leader's 'crime' was certainly not the passengers' fault.

Of course it was -- the passengers agreed to delegate the authority for steering the bus to Mr. Florida-leader per their established system of bus regulations.

There are several courses THE LAWBOOK SUPPLIES for  asking JUdge Brazile to review her decision, to change or commute the sentence, etc. There are several levels of appeals court that have the power to change it also. None of which is 'changing the rules'.

You're correct, of course. Just the same, a certain candidate could decide to seat the passengers 50/50 -- also fully within the rules.

by RP McMurphy 2008-04-08 11:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Memphis coach, fans call for new rule to apply
i am a Substitute in a 3rd grade class today..
I started thinking about Calvin..and Calvin Ball..
When they left for their "Special"..(Gym).. ironically...
and came across this..via Oliver Willis
Calvinball
http://www.oliverwillis.com/wp-content/u ploads/2008/04/calvinball.jpg
by nogo war 2008-04-09 08:24AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads