Obama Turns to Lies and Attacks on Hillary For Counting Florida/Michigan Votes

This is the absolute lowest.  Senator Obama is resorting to lies, false claims and negative politics for wanting to COUNT PEOPLES VOTES.  

Obama is showing his desperation again, to take this low road again, in saying anything in an effort to try to demonize Senator Clinton for wanting to count peoples votes, and him, Senator Obama OBVIOUSLY NOT wanting to and blocking every effort to count Michigan and Florida-even their willingness to revote if he wanted to block their existing votes from counting.

Yesterday Senator Obama told reporters on his plane, apparently not happy with his recent visit to Florida (you remember, he always blames someone else for his own short comings, like he just did to voters of Kentucky when he was polling so poorly).

"CHICAGO, Illinois (CNN) -- Sen. Barack Obama accused Sen. Hillary Clinton of stoking anger in Florida and Michigan over the Democratic Party's decision not to recognize the states' primary votes."

"They weren't stirring it up when they didn't need the delegates," he said. "Let's not sort of pretend that we don't know what's going on. This is, from their perspective, their last slender hope to make arguments about how they can win."

Senator Obama, can you tell us why you have been blocking every effort to count millions of citizens votes in Michigan and Florida?

And while you, Senator Obama, show you will take any low road, that in your eyes, the end justifies the means, in effort to benefit you personally, do not accuse Senator Clinton of what YOU YOURSELF DO.

And, while we're at it, that disgusting remark you just made about Senator Clinton, that you seem to have no problem in your politics, is also a lie.  I seem to recall Senator Clinton has always been fighting to have Florida and Michigan count.  Even while your campaign was mocking her effort to go to Florida after their polls closed, so she could still honor the DNC pledge not to campaign there before their primary, but wanted to acknowledge Florida and the voters, she promised them that night as well, to do everything to have their DELEGATES be seated.  

January 29, 2008

"I am thrilled to have had this vote of confidence that you have given me today," Clinton said. "And I promise you, I will do everything I can to make sure, not only are Florida's Democratic delegates seated, but that Florida is in the winning column for Democrats in 2008."

Senator Obama, it is time you apologize to Senator Clinton and the voters, for fighting and working so hard to NOT COUNT THEIR VOTES in Florida and Michigan and for falsely making claims about Senator Clinton.

We know this is a hard pill for Senator Obama to swallow.  He never admits his mistakes, blaming everyone else possible, voters or staff.  But a Leader is someone who can admit mistakes, learn and move forward.  And we realize Senator Obama may be bitter, because his own actions show his weakness and lack of support, that Hillary has always thought to speak to the voters first, not just if it helps her politically, like Senator OBama always seems to do.  Where he wouldn't even take time out from campaigning in Ohio and Texas to appear at 9th Annual State of the Black Union.  Where he finally decided to go to Michigan and Florida, many months later, on the heels of when the DNC Rules Committee will be meeting to decide on what to do with Florida and Michigan.  And where as Hillary is genuine and thought of the voters first, she is on record from long before when it became politically expedient, like you, for wanting their voices heard.  

Clinton Thanks Florida Voters

Democratic presidential candidate, US Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY), attends a campaign rally in Davie, Florida, after the polls closed on the Florida primary election, January 29, 2008. REUTERS/Brian Snyder

Another point Senator Obama.  Like you, Senator Clinton signed the DNC's pledge, along with many of the other presidential candidates, that they would not CAMPAIGN in Florida prior to the DNC's approved Primary Election date of February 5.  Being Florida, along with Michigan held their Primaries earlier on January 29, Hillary Clinton did not campaign there.  

You, Senator Obama, however did break the DNC rules.  Not only did your campaign run ads and spend 1.3 million dollars in the state, you also held a press conference there, a BIG NO NO in the DNC's Rules.

Not only did Obama participate in a fundraiser in Tampa; he presided over a news conference, claiming he will do "what's right" for the Florida voters. But what was "right" in September 2007 is not what he believes is "right" in January 2008. Is this electoral opportunism, or did one of Obama's staffers fail to hand him a copy of the pledge he made with other Democratic contenders two minutes before the Tampa news conference?

So, Senator Obama, there is an old saying-"The Truth Shall Set You Free".  And it seems you need a release.  Do the right thing for a change.  Apologize for not keeping your word to voters, not having their vote count and apologize to Senator Clinton for such dirty campaign tactics and incorrectly making false accusations of Senator Clinton.

Tags: Barack Obama, Delegate, Democrat, DNC rules, Election 2008, Florida, Hillary Clinton, Michigan, president, Primary, puerto rico, Voters, votes (all tags)

Comments

283 Comments

Obama Turns to Lies and Attacks on Hillary

President Hillary Clinton will replace much needed integrity and honest in the White House.

by LindaSFNM 2008-05-26 08:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Turns to Lies and Attacks on Hillary

She'll never reach the White House unless she's on a tour and she brought that fate upon herself.

by heresjohnny 2008-05-26 08:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Turns to Lies and Attacks on Hillary

Oh Really?

I thought her plan was to become VP and then have him assassinated....

by nikkid 2008-05-26 08:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Turns to Lies and Attacks on Hillary

Do you really want to go there?  I would think the Clinton

by ihaveseenenough 2008-05-26 08:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Turns to Lies and Attacks on Hillary

you would think ...but what is stopping you from that?

by zerosumgame 2008-05-26 09:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Turns to Lies and Attacks on Hillary

Ha my lack of ability to withhold hitting the post button, apparently.

Nah, I just got so confused by typing Clinton and think in the same sentence my mind blew a fuse.

by ihaveseenenough 2008-05-26 10:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Turns to Lies and Attacks on Hillary

Your words not mine.

by heresjohnny 2008-05-26 08:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Turns to Lies and Attacks on Hillary

Wayyyy out of line.  Please stop.

by niksder 2008-05-26 08:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Turns to Lies and Attacks on Hillary
i thought it was funny :)
did you see that argument actually beeing made somewhere? This kind of troll-rage would be worth a read.
by standd 2008-05-26 09:07AM | 0 recs
Really, really inappropriate. n/t

by sricki 2008-05-26 09:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Turns to Lies and Attacks on Hillary

Wait, so she always supported counting Michigan and Florida?

What's this then?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULxxBz-PA jg

by doschi 2008-05-26 11:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Turns to Lies and Attacks on Hillary

That's not fair. As U.S. Senator and former first lady, I'm sure she'll be invited to photo ops, state dinners and the like

by BlueinColorado 2008-05-26 08:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Turns to Lies and Attacks on Hillary

Oh yeah that's true! That's way better than a tour.

by heresjohnny 2008-05-26 08:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Turns to Lies and Attacks on Hillary

Just check the silverware after she leaves.

by Joe Beese 2008-05-26 09:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Turns to Lies and Attacks on Hillary

Replace it with what?

by mistersite 2008-05-26 08:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Turns to Lies and Attacks on Hillary

Hahaha. I read her intent into her statement and failed to notice that what she said was not what she meant to say but probably what she was thinking.

by heresjohnny 2008-05-26 08:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Turns to Lies and Attacks on Hillary

"I personally did not think it made any difference whether my name was on the ballot. You know, It's clear this election they are having is not going to count for anything."

Hillary Clinton, Oct 1

Now, what was that about integrity? Here she is telling the voters of Michigan they won't have a say, before the election. Today, she "leads" the way to make sure their votes count. What has changed? Only the fact she has gone from presumptive nominee to spoiler grasping for straws.

Or don't words matter?

by Statsman 2008-05-26 08:59AM | 0 recs
It really is curious...

... how I never see any Clinton supporters respond when someone posts something like this.  It is very clear the Clinton campaign was previously fine with the FL/MI sanctions, they even claimed the goal was 2025 delegates... it wasn't until they were behind and really needed those delegates that they got all righteous about it.  Wether or not you think the current sanctions are too extreme, doesn't the timing of this reversal of opinion seem a bit, well, convenient to any of these people?

Just curious.

by protothad 2008-05-26 10:45AM | 0 recs
Re: It really is curious...

Well, generally because they cut off the rest of her comment, which demonstrates that she was not "fine" with giving them no delegates, and they fail to link to a source in context. And in this case get the date wrong, it was October 11th:

But I just personally did not want to set up a situation where the Republicans are going to be campaigning between now and whenever, and then after the nomination, we have to go in and repair the damage to be ready to win Michigan in 2008.

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

It's like arguing with creationists, you can't have an honest conversation with people who are willing to quote mine.

by souvarine 2008-05-26 11:29AM | 0 recs
Re: It really is curious...

Like that helps any.  Those two quotes are her trying to justify not taking her name off the ballot.  Had nothing to do with counting the delegates.  And if she had wanted to count the delegates prior to the primaries starting, they would have counted.

by Tumult 2008-05-26 12:02PM | 0 recs
souvarine, nice to see ya. Hate to see you.

waste you gifts on the beasiteboyz.  The don't reason and are only here to try to keep anyone from enjoying LindaSFNM's thoughtful diary and learning from her writing and from posters like you.  

The disrupters' job is to keep anyone from figuring out the Obama memes and how they do not accurately reflect other's intentions, actions, context and followup on events and issues.  We have seen the Obama camp, once again this weekend, take a quote, trim the context away, twist its meaning, fake outrage and blanket the press and supporters with the new Obama view of the twisted quote.  Issue the offended response from the spokesman, link to the replay of Keith Obermann's spewage on Hillary and then put out Obama to say he didn't find the comment offensive when the furor is dying down.

We know that in context, Hillary's intent was clear.  The Obama people yelled when they took his name off the Michigan ballot and led others to do so, that she was breaking the rules by leaving her's on.  Then on the last day he tried to get back on without telling Edwards and others, but failed to get all the paperwork in by the close of business.  Now that action gives some context to BO's comments.  But you won't hear it from the beastieboyz.  It looks too much like Obama double gaming the system.  Just like it turned out with the ads he ran that were supposed to cause him to forfit any delegates from the states in question.  They won't talk about that either.

You notice how they skip right over the 1.3 million.  They don't talk about the ads and pr push  in Michigan to try to get people to vote uncommitted, either.  That, in iteslf was a campaign. Clinton did not campaign in either state and she has said from the beginning that she would fight to help them get recognized.  Guess what?  She has.  That is the context her statements should be quoted in.

And anyone who wants to complain or call her on a negative on this needs to set up a comparative context, to be honest.  It sould map out BO's comments, choices and actions on the subject so that any negative dig at Clinton, whether through quote mining or not, can be set in comparison to  the totality of BO's record on the same subject.  If they pick some isolated or twisted quote and complain, that complaint should stand up nicely to the whole stack of actions taken by Obama to disrespect, game, manipulate and ultimatey discount the voters of Mi and FL.

If her character can be impugned on a twisted quote out of the context of her other words and all of her actions on the issue, then what can we do with Obama's character if the totality of his actions  on the subject show a gamer, for Iowa, dissing MI and FL, leading other candidates away and trying to sneak back on the ballot, criticising Clinton for being there, stopping the re-votes every time they came close to being araanged, even paid for, and still cheating and lying about it by running ads campaigning and denying it.

 So let's see how this stacks up.  One candidate says sone things at a particular time and then acts against them to the benefit of others and consistently so for months.  The other candidate says some things and acts against them consistantly for months to the detriment of others, and he cheats and lies to do it.  Hmmmmm.

If the posters who dive in to troll bomb and take over the threads in any diary positive to Hillary or negative to Obama, cannot broaden their thinking to include context like this, then they are either not capable of rational discourse or they can do it but for some perhaps nefarious motivation, they won't do it.  Either way you have really good stuff to say and your posting time is valuable to us.

If they prove to be intellectually unavailable or abusive, let them do it to each other and you can talk with the  posters who have real questions and concerns to share. A lot of us admire your work and LindaSFNM's and don't think ratings abuse and trolls should mar it.

So thanks, LindaSFNM and souvarine and all ot the other posters who will read, rec and comment on this diary without trying to hijack it,or distract  and abuse those who want to pursue and enjoy it.

It is getting difficult for a lot of people to even bother here any more, but that seems to be what the beastieboyz and strawman builders want.     They are a technological marvel and very dedicated to getting in the first word and the last word and to build the strawmen fast as they can and rec each other and troll rate and zero out the rest.  They need to "win" every little thread fragment and keep it up till all the real posters give up and shut up.  The start so soon that they don't have time to read the actual diaries and comments.  It is a marvel.  And it takes a lot of haystacks.

What would we do with these folks if they disrupted conversations in the physical world?  If , after we were polite for a moment, we found them more aggressive, disrespectful, bullying toward some in the group?  What would we think and how would we characterize their behaviour?

I hate that good people are leaving and am glad that the site owners are making some efforts to see the standards of site participation applied, but in the meantime, I'm thinking another poster had some good advice," Don't feed them".

by itsadryheat 2008-05-26 02:30PM | 0 recs
Re: souvarine, nice to see ya. Hate to see you.

Wow.  This is one of the best comments I've seen written on this site in a long time.  

I didn't know that Obama tried to sneak back on the ballot the day before Michigan voted and I've been following this topic heavily for months now.  Thank you.

by BPK80 2008-05-26 09:02PM | 0 recs
Wow! I've just been reading your stunning
work on the rules and bylaws committee diary.  You make an astonishing effort and really good responses. But the sheeer stamina to stay so extensively, intelligently involved with such restraint....most admirable. Goodonya, Brainwarrior!
Wish everybody on the committee had a requirement to read it.
by itsadryheat 2008-05-28 12:17AM | 0 recs
Re: It really is curious...

Before Hillary was losing...

....No one is going to win the nomination without them. Our goal is to get to 2025 delegates. " - Howard Wolfson

::

WOLFSON: I guess one other thing I'd add is that, as you know, this is a race for delegates. And we currently enjoy a lead in delegates, thanks to the great -- some of the great super delegates that we have on this call and around the country.

...And we believe that we will come out of February 5th with the delegates that we need.

::

MCAULIFFE: Well, I mean, sure that's possible. I mean, anything's possible in this business. I've said from day one, and this is the point I tried to make yesterday on television when everybody was asking me questions about after Iowa and New Hampshire what happens, I've always viewed it sort of as a 27-state contest.

But, listen, I always said we're going to win some, we're going to lose some. And at the end of the day it's getting a basket of delegates.

::

Now...

"I'm very proud that as of today, I have received more votes by the people who have voted than anyone else," Clinton said Wednesday, one day after her decisive win in Pennsylvania.

::

Terry McAuliffe is a quick draw. Last night, mere seconds after the networks had crowned Hillary Clinton the Keystone State victor, the former DNC chairman--and current Clinton adviser--was already on the air, spinning like a top. His main talking point? It's the popular vote, stupid. "By the time we finish this process," he told MSNBC at 9:20 p.m., "Hillary Clinton will have moved ahead in the popular vote."

::

"That new popular vote total (not counting FL or MI) has Obama leading Clinton, 49%-47%. For those keeping score, that's a difference of 483,129. ... So those remaining contests, per this conservative projection, bring Obama's popular vote lead to 515,629. If you add Florida, that gives Clinton almost another 300,000 more. So you if you include the Sunshine State, Obama will still lead her by about 215,000 popular votes. No wonder Clinton herself decided to start talking about Michigan again, because she can't "win" the popular vote without it. The problem: Even many Clinton supporters believe it's not a valid measurement."

by Tommy Flanagan 2008-05-26 11:41AM | 0 recs
Re: It really is curious...

The reason why they never can even entertain this argument is because it would mean accepting the fact that Hillary broke a promise, one she put in writing, when she said these contests wouldn't count. And what does this mean, if she broke her promise, and then turned around and said and argued for the opposite of what she promised to do, once she started losing?

I'll leave it to you to decide what this is called.

Linda won't answer these comments because she can't. It's just talking points from the Clinton camp. I know that Hillary doesn't believe her own words (much like Ann Coulter doesn't actually believe anything she says), and it seems clear to me that even her bloggers (whether they are paid or not, if they are taking part in campaign conference calls from HRC, they "belong" to the candidate and her campaign) likely don't buy the "spin." It's just a power ploy. If they say it over and over again, maybe some people will believe it. It doesn't have to be true. It just has to create a narrative of doubt. And this, in turn, can "potentially" position HRC to gain some sort of advantage or power in all of this.

Of course, judging from the reported response of SD's and people in the DNC (those who will decide the outcome of all of this) this kind of naked grab for power on HRC's part is not only NOT working, it is having the exact opposite effect. It will likely succeed in shutting her and her supporters out at the meeting next week (and shutting this whole ridiculous argument down). They're offended by these tactics. And they aren't likely to reward HRC or her supporters for engaging in such divisive and destructive talk. The delegations will be seated, but not in any way that is advantageous to HRC. She hasn't earned it. If she had played nice, if she had played fair, if she had even been rational and reasonable in her approach, she would have been better off. Instead, she tried to demagogue the whole thing. You don't win friends and reach across the aisle by doing this. Instead, you alienate the very people you need to be on your side.

by DrPolitics 2008-05-26 01:36PM | 0 recs
Honesty, Objectivity, Credibility

The three of them go together.

"The reason why they never can even entertain this argument is because it would mean accepting the fact that Hillary broke a promise, one she put in writing, when she said these contests wouldn't count."

If you were familiar with this Four-State Pledge you're referencing you would know that there was no such "promise...when she said these contests wouldn't count."  The pledge was a (ceremonial, nonbinding) statement vowing not to campaign or participate.  The day after it was signed, Obama breached it by campaigning, by definition (the Rules definition, not mine).  

This quote people love to use against Hillary was snipped out of its context (see above) and made under completely different circumstances.  The Party was trying to get Michigan to revote on a different date and they would have, had Obama and his surrogates not actively blocked their efforts in both Michigan and Florida.  The guy opposed a mail-in ballot plan in Florida.  WTF!

Why is Obama so scared to seat those states when he's supposedly winning by almost 200 delegates?

Because per the rules, he would lose all of his delegates there for campaigning (more likely in Florida than Michigan).  Then there's the fact that 55 superdelegates come into play from both states and they are decidedly pissed at Obama for messing around with their elections.  Hillary's best case scenario isn't to gain a handful of delegates here and there; she's online for a +200 swing if the delegations are fully counted in proportion to the states' votes and appropriate penalties apply to Obama.  

by BPK80 2008-05-26 09:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Turns to Lies and Attacks on Hillary

This diary sucks, No links, no proof just spin. Please delete

by telfishbackagain 2008-05-26 09:09AM | 0 recs
Love that picture of Alfred BO Newman!

"What me worry"?

by CoyoteCreek 2008-05-26 09:18AM | 0 recs
One word

Tuzla

by elrod 2008-05-26 09:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Question, LindaSFNM

Do you believe that MI and FL should have full voting rights on the party platform, vice presidency, etc. after they broke the rules?

by Brad G 2008-05-26 09:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Question, LindaSFNM

They should have at least partial rights restored, since the rules are pretty rotten to begin with.

by therealdeal 2008-05-26 11:18AM | 0 recs
Oh, okay, got it

rules rotten, must disobey.  Check.

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-05-26 12:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Oh, okay, got it

rules are rules, must always be obeyed regardless of context or justification.  Check, comrade.

by therealdeal 2008-05-26 01:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Are you honestly equating ...

... equating these rules to segregation and other manifest injustices?  Come on.

by Brad G 2008-05-26 01:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Question, LindaSFNM

I agree FL/MI should have partial voting rights (although not because the rules are rotten), but the question is whether those two scofflaw jurisdictions should have full voting rights.

by Brad G 2008-05-26 12:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Question, LindaSFNM
I believe if they'd followed the rules as they were written, and taken half of the delegates and all of the super delegates away from both states, then we wouldn't be in this mess.
However, after the DNC's pandering to the early states and allowing them to move their dates without penalty and then ignoring New Hampshire's power play, one can hardly blame Michigan or Florida for wanting to have a say in the process and expecting to be treated as fairly as the other states were.
by skohayes 2008-05-26 01:48PM | 0 recs
Re: I disagree.

Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, etc. were ready to leapfrog Florida and Michigan if it meant only a 50% penalty.  We'd be lucky if the first primary began after Halloween.  That's why Donna Brazile, who led the effort, high level Clinton advisor Harold Ickes, and other DNC members felt fully stripping Florida and Michigan of their full delegations was the only meaningful solution.

And you see how well the 50% penalty went for Republicans.  Not only did Florida and Michigan have more say than Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Indiana, but Michigan was pivotal to Mitt Romney's resurgence and Florida helped John McCain clinch the nomination.

by Brad G 2008-05-26 02:01PM | 0 recs
Re: I disagree.
The problem with the primary calender is that the DNC lost control of the states, pandered to the early states (New Hampshire and Nevada) and punished Florida and Michigan unfairly, because they expected the race to be over by Super Tuesday.
Howard Dean has not shown the leadership I expected out of him.
by skohayes 2008-05-26 02:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Pandering

I actually like having IA and NH having first-in-the-nation status.  It's the only way a lesser-known, underfinanced, underdog candidate has the opportunity really to show he/she can connect with the voters.  There's something profoundly democratic about watching a candidate shiver in the cold NH snow only to shake a voter's hand.

And I've lived in big states -- VA, PA, and MA -- all but six months of my life.

by Brad G 2008-05-26 04:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Turns to Lies and Attacks on Hillary

This diary is surely some giant snark. If not then you are one sad person. Please get help soon.

by telfishbackagain 2008-05-26 10:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Turns to Lies and Attacks on Hillary

Linda said:

I seem to recall Senator Clinton has always been fighting to have Florida and Michigan count.

Senator Clinton said:

You know, it's clear this election (in Michigan) they're having isn't going to count for anything.

([NHPR Interview, 10/11/07])

by Virginia Liberal 2008-05-26 10:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Turns to Lies and Attacks on Hillary

Yeah, with sex scandals and Bill philandering.

by stevema14420 2008-05-26 11:35AM | 0 recs
This reminds me of;

Enron on global warming.
Cigarette companies on health risks.
Pentagon propagandists on the Iraq War.

I am sure this load of crap would qualify you to work as a pundit for FOX news, or as the successor to Rush Limbaugh.

Can't you come up with a reason based on honesty and integrity to support Hillary Clinton anymore?

Didn't think so.

It's too bad to be President she has to win somewhere other than your imagination.

by Tumult 2008-05-26 11:54AM | 0 recs
Baghdad Bob got nothin' on her.

"The infidels are being sent squealing back to their ancestors at the gates of the city even as we speak."  

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-05-26 12:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Turns to Lies and Attacks on Hillary

"President Hillary Clinton will replace much needed integrity and honest in the White House" -with the same old nonsense from the '90s.

Gee, let's keep doing the same thing over and over.

by catilinus 2008-05-26 04:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Turns to Lies and Attacks on Hillary

Replace it with what?

by Travis Stark 2008-05-26 05:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Turns to Lies and Attacks on Hillary

Just because you want HRC to win doesn't make your lies true.

Isn't that HRC's voice? Gee...how can that be.

The only reason HRC cares about MI and FL is because of the delegates. I didn't hear or see her do anything about it beforehand - before she was losing.

You have no credibility!

by comingawakening 2008-05-26 06:23PM | 0 recs
Actually you're lying. It's clear both Bill and

Hillary are trying to anger people with false and outrageous comparisons to slavery, zimbabwe, and sufferage.

As a descendant of slaves they can both kiss my ass.

You folks that think she could win in the GE after her antics are insane.

by heresjohnny 2008-05-26 08:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Actually you're lying.

I for one am sick of people demeaning good decent liberals like Hillary and Bill Clinton. The race based animosity to anyone who criticizes, mocks, or derides Barack Obama is disgusting.

by Caliman 2008-05-26 08:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Actually you're lying.

Does hardworking people, white people ring a bell?

by niksder 2008-05-26 08:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Actually you're lying.

You one of those hard working Americans, white Americans or one of those "proud" African-Americans or something else? You think FL & MI is like slavery?

by heresjohnny 2008-05-26 09:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Actually you're lying.

Oh yeah. And they're not liberals. In fact, that was the attack they used on Obama. To them being a liberal is a bad thing.

by heresjohnny 2008-05-26 09:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Actually you're lying.

Then i am sure that you also hate to see good liberals like Obama trashed as he is in this terrible excuse for a diary...right?

by oliver cromwell 2008-05-26 10:43AM | 0 recs
Caliman, you are one plus at least 17,000,000

and me.

by itsadryheat 2008-05-26 02:34PM | 0 recs
So mocking Obama is OK

but not mocking Hillary when she compares Florida to ZIMFUCKINGBABWE?!  

by kellogg 2008-05-26 02:36PM | 0 recs
Votes

Hillary should be the nominee and the superdelegates better fix this.  

Hillary is prepared to lead from day one.  She's a fighter. We need a fighter.

by HillsMyGirl 2008-05-26 08:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Votes

Whereas, Obama is actually going to need a few hours.  Take a tour, see where everything is.  He'll be ready to lead by about noon, though.

by ihaveseenenough 2008-05-26 08:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Votes

We needed a fighter when she was in the Senate.

Had she delivered then, she'd be the nominee now.

She sat quietly with her hands folded in her lap, with one eye on David Broder and the other on Joe Lieberman to figure out what she should do.

No thanks.

by BlueinColorado 2008-05-26 08:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Votes

Yep.  If that "fighter" had shown up in 2002 and fought against the Iraq War Resolution, she might have earned my vote this year.  If she'd devoted her obvious tenacity and strength to opposing what many of us could see was a profound and immoral mistake, she could have led the charge to stop the war.  With her grit, I have no doubt that she would have stood alone in the Senate chamber filibustering if she'd have needed to.

But instead, she stood with George W. Bush.  She, who by virtue of her experience should have known better than most what a boondoggle this war would be, voted for it.

by mistersite 2008-05-26 08:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Votes

The superdelegates had better fix this, or what?  You'll hold your breath and stamp you feet?  The superdelegates will follow the will of the people and vote for the candidate with the most pledged delegates.

by Gene In PA 2008-05-26 08:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Votes

How does following the will of the people and voting for the candidate with the most pledged delegates amount to the same thing? Hillary may very well end up with more votes than Obama when it is all said and done. She has won more congressional districts and far more electoral college votes, if you want to look at those numbers. Neither candidate will have clinched the nomination on pledged delegates alone, so it will be up to the SDs to determine the will of the people, as well as who will more likely win the GE (not that I expect that consideration to carry much weight).

by Inky 2008-05-26 06:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Votes

Please, please...  "Our Girl should win.  Talking point 1.  Talking point 2."  

You can do better than this.

by neeborMolgula 2008-05-26 08:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Votes

Ready to lie on day 1. Hope there is no sniper fire anywhere near.

by telfishbackagain 2008-05-26 10:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Votes

Ha, that's perfect.  The superdelegates better fix this.  Like the mob fixing a fight.  

Then we'd have the right nominee?  

The fix was in.  They piled on more than a hundred superdelegates even before we caucused in Iowa.  She was given big money and a phantom lead to blunt Obama's momentum even though she failed to ever take a lead in pledged delegates among the voters.  

The fix was in for her and she still got beat.  How that still makes her the more 'electable' candidate is a deep mystery.  

Seems like people are having a real hard time seperating what they wish had happened with what actually did.  

by Sun Dog 2008-05-26 10:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Votes

It's true. On December 31, 2007 Hillary had about $37million to Obama's $19million, a lead of about 20 points in the nationwide polls, and a whole bunch of superdelegates. She blew this thing on her own. She was in it for the long run - like until February 5!!!

by stevema14420 2008-05-26 11:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Votes

Her apparent inability to own any part of it is really affecting her supporters in a negative way.  

Something people seemed to miss in that 'assasinated' comment was that she was in the midst of talking about how she is being unfairly pushed from the race counter to historic precedent.  A first year poli sci student could tell you that it is a ludicrously false argument.  And the 'I can't explain it' baloney a clear nod to the 'boys club' bitterness she seems intent on spreading.

Her campaign at this point seems very much an effort at nothing more than trying to hurt Democratic chances at taking the White House.  

by Sun Dog 2008-05-26 12:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Votes

Hillary is a fighter? I missed that. Did she return fire when under attack in Bosnia?

by utopia 2008-05-26 10:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Votes

HRC liar on day one!


by comingawakening 2008-05-26 06:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Turns to Lies and Attacks on Hillary For

This is not a lie:

"They weren't stirring it up when they didn't need the delegates," he said. "Let's not sort of pretend that we don't know what's going on. This is, from their perspective, their last slender hope to make arguments about how they can win."

This is a lie:

"[Obama has] been blocking every effort to count millions of citizens votes in Michigan and Florida"

Learn the difference.

by Mandoliniment 2008-05-26 08:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Turns to Lies and Attacks on Hillary For

Oh, 4justice, your TR hurts me so. Ever so much more than if you were to critique the substance of my post. No, by selecting the little "1" you strike deeply at my soul.

by Mandoliniment 2008-05-26 09:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Turns to Lies and Attacks on Hillary For

Exactly.  The almost complete disregard for facts around here is just mind blowing.  The diarist is delusional.

There's no playing nice with people who won't acknowledge objective fact.

by Same As It Ever Was 2008-05-26 10:02AM | 0 recs
No, they must be dealt with firmly

lest they spread their poison.

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-05-26 12:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Turns to Lies and Attacks on Hillary For

This is not a lie:

"They weren't stirring it up when they didn't need the delegates," he said. "Let's not sort of pretend that we don't know what's going on. This is, from their perspective, their last slender hope to make arguments about how they can win."

This is a lie:

"[Obama has] been blocking every effort to count millions of citizens votes in Michigan and Florida"

Learn the difference.

by Mandoliniment 2008-05-26 08:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Turns to Lies and Attacks on Hillary For

Sorry for double post.

by Mandoliniment 2008-05-26 08:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Turns to Lies and Attacks on Hillary For

Both posts are wrong

by gunner 2008-05-26 08:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Turns to Lies and Attacks on Hillary For

How so?

by heresjohnny 2008-05-26 08:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Turns to Lies and Attacks on Hillary For

<crickets chirping>

by kitebro 2008-05-26 10:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Turns to Lies and Attacks on Hillary For

Really? Do tell?

Do you have substantive evidence showing that Clinton was advocating for the seating of MI and FL before it was clear that she needed their delegates? No? In fact, evidence to the contrary has been presented to the point of boredom.

What about Clinton's blocking of the MI Democratic Party compromize solution? Obama agreed to that.

So the substance of my post is clearly true, whether or not you like it.

by Mandoliniment 2008-05-26 09:09AM | 0 recs
Don't back down now, gunner

We're all waiting with bated breath for your righteous defense of your statement.

by bookish 2008-05-26 11:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Turns to Lies and Attacks on Hillary For

Actually, you obviously don't know the difference.  Hillary has been talking about seating the delegates from Florida and Michigan since January, and Obama and his team did block the efforts to have a revote in Michigan.

by Mags 2008-05-26 09:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Turns to Lies and Attacks on Hillary For

the Clinton campaign rejected a Michigan compromise that would give her a 10-delegate edge in the state over Mr. Obama.

Washington times, May 9 2008

by Mandoliniment 2008-05-26 09:52AM | 0 recs
And yet Clinton did not count Florida

or Michigan in February 2008 when she put the magic number at 2025.  Strange.  

You see, "seated" was to be an honorary thing, after she'd won the inevitable nomination.  They wouldn't be decisive.  But they became decisive (for her) when she needed them, and not before.  

by kellogg 2008-05-26 10:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Turns to Lies and Attacks on Hillary

"Senator Obama, can you tell us why you have been blocking every effort to count millions of citizens votes in Michigan and Florida?"

Because Obama's plan for being elected is to DISENFRANCHISE as many voters as possible so he can be President.

It's also how he got his first job in the state senate by DISENFRANCHISING all opposing candidates including Alice Palmer, the incumbent.

by nikkid 2008-05-26 08:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Turns to Lies and Attacks on Hillary

It's also how he got his first job in the state senate by DISENFRANCHISING all opposing candidates including Alice Palmer, the incumbent.

He took away her right to vote?  That's pretty impressive for a community organizer.

You keep using that word.  I do not think it means what you think it means.

by mistersite 2008-05-26 08:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Turns to Lies and Attacks on Hillary

once again, I don't think you understand the concept of the voting FRANCHISE. All those registered voters will have the FRANCHISE in the national election.

by BlueinColorado 2008-05-26 08:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Turns to Lies and Attacks on Hillary

Senator Obama did not disenfranchise anyone. That action was taken by the DNC. The DNC took that action in response to Florida and Michigan ignoring party rules as to the scheduling of primaries.

Hillary and Bill Clinton had much more influence over the DNC than did Barrack Obama.

Before you call people "DISENFRANCHISERS" you have some obligation to get your facts straight and to state them honestly.

by Sam Wise Gingy 2008-05-26 08:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Turns to Lies and Attacks on Hillary

Thank you.  I can't figure out why the HRC supporters don't ask Harold Ickes why this happened.

And Sen. Clinton has ALWAYS been for counting all of the votes in Fla. and Michigan.  Except when she wasn't for it.

by niksder 2008-05-26 08:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Turns to Lies and Attacks on Hillary

He wanted all the candidates to play by the same rules. That is not disenfranchisement to me.

by Wee Mama 2008-05-26 10:36AM | 0 recs
Reality is biased against Hillary.

Obama needs 49 more delegates, unless Michigan and Florida are seated.

Unless Michigan and Florida are seated as is they won't have any impact on the outcome of this contest.

If Michigan is seated as is and the majority of "uncommitted pledged delegates" do not support Clinton, then Obama will still win.

by Sam Wise Gingy 2008-05-26 08:34AM | 0 recs
Wonder why Obama still opposes it

It's like he doesn't care about November or beyond. He just wants to beat Hillary then lose to McCain. Odd.

by catfish2 2008-05-26 08:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Wonder why Obama still opposes it

Opposes what?

It is not Obama's decision as to how or if the Florida delegations are seated. It is the decision of the Rules and Bylaws Committee. The will decide whether to enforce the rules or change them.

If you have some specific proposal for the seating of the Florida and Michigan delegations that you would like the Obama campaign to agree to please tell me what it is or where it can be found.

by Sam Wise Gingy 2008-05-26 08:49AM | 0 recs
Well he's still trashing Hillary

because she's trying to get them seated.

And he is in charge of so little, yet he wants to be president.

by catfish2 2008-05-26 08:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Well he's still trashing Hillary

Show your evidence that Obama is opposed to having them seated.

Do you have any?

by Sam Wise Gingy 2008-05-26 09:02AM | 0 recs
He says she's stirring up anger

by trying to get them seated. Yet he "wants" the primary to be over. His people claim it's "over". And he's supposed to be some unifier.

So it looks like he's opposed to what Hillary is doing.

by catfish2 2008-05-26 09:09AM | 0 recs
Re: He says she's stirring up anger
No, he says she's stirring up anger by using the issue as a political wedge against him, not by actually trying to get them seated.  
There's a difference.
by msirt 2008-05-26 09:29AM | 0 recs
But if he's already &quot;won&quot; a wedge is

meaningless.

by catfish2 2008-05-26 09:35AM | 0 recs
Does GWB ever post here?

Meaningless for those not perceptive enough to understand the difference.

by emptythreatsfarm 2008-05-26 09:46AM | 0 recs
Of which there are many

here at MyDD.

It's going to be hard to resist the joy I feel in nine days when the worst of the Clinton backers are licking their wounds. I've been stocking up on salt for a while now.

by bookish 2008-05-26 11:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Of which there are many
And remember, as you spread salt in the wounds, how many people just on this blog have threatened to stay home or vote for McCain.
People like you are inspiring this kind of hatred, not Obama.
by skohayes 2008-05-26 01:56PM | 0 recs
I feel like I've been held hostage

to this sort of thinking for too long. Anyone who says they'd vote for McCain, or would actually vote for him were never going to support Obama, so there's really no downside.

I referred in my post to a certain type of Clinton supporter whose behavior has been nothing but divisive and hyperbolic trading on rumors and lies, and I have no sympathy for their plight.

by bookish 2008-05-26 03:11PM | 0 recs
In fact, she doesn't really want them seated.

... any more than the Religious Right or the Republican Party really want abortion outlawed.

She would lose this club with which she now fundraises from her remaining dead-enders and hits Obama on the stump.  Seat the Michigan and Florida delegations, and she loses her remaining justification for staying on the campaign trail.

Her only hope to ever be President is to sow enough division among Democrats to weaken Obama's candidacy now.  But she really doesn't want Michigan and Florida seated.  If she did, she would have argued against the punishment they received from the DNC back last year, when all her top supporters established the punishment.

by tbetz 2008-05-26 09:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Well he's still trashing Hillary

He's criticizing her because she never stood up to defend the voters of Florida until she needed their delegates.

by Same As It Ever Was 2008-05-26 10:06AM | 0 recs
Sorry

The above comment was meant for a different place on the thread.

by Sam Wise Gingy 2008-05-26 09:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Wonder why Obama still opposes it

Well, he only gets to go on if he beats Hillary, so I can understand why they focus on this primary battle.  

Hillary has no hope unless Fla. and MI are counted as is, so she's still focused on this battle as well.

Pretty simple stuff.  The mission isn't accomplished, until it's accomplished.  Hillary's campaign told Obama's that not too long ago.

Personally, I wouldn't trust the folks who tell me they have the lead in the popular vote (while counting Michigan and Florida and leaving out four caucus states) as far as I could throw them.

by niksder 2008-05-26 09:00AM | 0 recs
So only if we omit two states

does he win. Interesting.

by catfish2 2008-05-26 09:37AM | 0 recs
Re: So only if we omit two states

No.  He wins either way.  It's just a matter of how long the process will take.

Frankly, I think Obama should have encouraged revotes because he would have trounced her in MI and performed much better in FL than he did the first time.  He would be the nominee right now if he had.

by Same As It Ever Was 2008-05-26 10:08AM | 0 recs
Agreed. He looks afraid

I don't understand what he's doing.

by catfish2 2008-05-26 10:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Agreed. He looks afraid

He's winning.

by Same As It Ever Was 2008-05-26 10:16AM | 0 recs
Why is he afraid then?

So odd.

by catfish2 2008-05-26 10:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Why is he afraid then?

I don't think he's afraid.  He is just trying to find the end game that ends Hillary's campaign soonest with the least damage.  I'm thinking the concern is that if he concedes early to seating FL and MI it extends her campaign.  Or he knows somethign we don't and there's no chance the DNC will seat them and he doesn't want to alienate super delegates committed to punishing those states.

by Same As It Ever Was 2008-05-26 10:47AM | 0 recs
Re: So only if we omit two states

Look here catfish, have you even looked at the numbers or are you just trolling? Please go to http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/ right now and have a look at them.

Obama is ahead by almost 200 delegates right now (without Michigan and Florida). If you seat Michigan and Florida and merely give him the uncommitted from there, he'd still be almost 140 delegates ahead of Clinton.

So basically you can seat Florida and Michigan THREE TIMES EACH, and he'd still be ahead of Clinton.

Even if you give all the uncommited delegates to CLINTON, he's still ahead, and comfortably so.

If you don't know that you're misinformed -- I directed you at the site where you can get new info.

If on the other hand you did know it and you pretended you did not, then you're a dishonest debater and should be ashamed of yourself, and you disgrace all of Clinton's supporters in this manner.

Either way, shape up please. Either your knowledge or your sincerity ought be improved.

by Aris Katsaris 2008-05-26 11:21AM | 0 recs
Then he should get them seated

If he gives a lick about winning in November, he should fight to get them seated.

There could be consequences:

According to a Miami Herald poll earlier this week, 24% of Florida Democrats say they are less likely to support the ultimate Democratic candidate if their votes in the primary don't count.

by catfish2 2008-05-26 11:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Then he should get them seated

As a point of tactics, I agree with you, he should agree to have them seated -- even though the contests were unfair, unjust and undemocratic, even though Clinton will pretend it was her pressure that forced Obama into it, and even though she'll claim it as an additional reason to stay in the race all the way to convention. Even though her supporters will use this to portray Clinton as a "fighter", and Obama as a loser.

But this is merely a point of tactics, not of morality or ethics. He has no moral obligation towards this effect -- the Michigan and Florida primaries were blatantly unfair and illegitimate. Seating their delegations is unjust against him.

I can agree that he should probably accept this unjustice as a point of tactics, but he's not ethically obligated to do so.

by Aris Katsaris 2008-05-26 12:11PM | 0 recs
Hahahahaha!

You're missing the point completely.

If you argue tactics -

If you seat them, the DNC will have no control over the nominating process for the next election
...they argue morals -
You have to count the votes! That's Democracy! You're disenfranchising people!
If you argue morals -
Which people? The people who didn't vote because they were told it wouldn't count? The people who would have voted for Obama, but he and the other major candidates (except for Hillary) took a stand and removed their names from the ballot? How is it moral to count an election in which half the people were discouraged from voting, and only one major candidate's name was on the ballot?

...they argue tactics -
If you don't count their votes now, they might get angry and not vote for us in the general election. Especially after we've spent months getting them all angry and riled up over it.

When Hillary vetoed the most recent Michigan plan, it was on the hight moral ground that making any change or compromise "wouldn't reflect the will of the voters". A polite way of saying, "It was not in our tactical interest to allow the votes to be counted at this time."

by Victor Laszlo 2008-05-26 01:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Hahahahaha!
The pledge was not to campign or participate in the election, even the DNC said there was nothing in the pledge about taking their names off the ballot.
Otherwise, they would have all been violating the pledge in Florida by fundraising and leaving their names on the ballot.
 That "taking a stand", as you call it was the candidates with nothing to lose pandering to New Hampshire, nothing more.
There are no moral issues here.
by skohayes 2008-05-26 02:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Hahahahaha!

by Aris Katsaris 2008-05-26 02:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Hahahahaha!

skohayes, are you among the people that still pretend not to know that Obama&Edwards wanted to take their names off Florida as well but they weren't allowed by Florida's own rules, unless they wanted to withdraw their candidacy altogether?

I've explained this dozens of times -- altogether it's probably explained dozens of times by various people every week on MyDD. Do you still not know that? Did you just get your first internet connection or something, to be so woefully uninformed?

by Aris Katsaris 2008-05-26 02:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Hahahahaha!
I would answer your questions, but gratuitous insults from you show that you aren't really interested in answers.
I've decided not to condone such behavior anymore.
by skohayes 2008-05-26 02:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Hahahahaha!

Well, thing is I've decided not to condone intentional dishonesty. I find it difficult to believe that anyone on the Internet remotely interested about the primaries still doesn't know about Obama and Edwards not being allowed to remove their names from the Florida ballot.

Now sure, try to cover up your dishonesty by taking offense. Whatever works for you. However I'll not that no Clinton supporter whatsoever has ever yet managed to answer it, not even back in the old times that I bothered to be polite about it and wasn't directly accusing them of dishonesty.

by Aris Katsaris 2008-05-26 02:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Hahahahaha!

That's why I argue that he should escape this dishonest circle, by letting them have everything they want on the issue.

Clinton just wants something to complain about. Let her have her pyrrhic and unjust victory on this issue, give her supporters one less thing to complain about.

by Aris Katsaris 2008-05-26 02:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Then he should get them seated

That's if the residents of Florida can remember that far back.

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-05-26 12:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Wonder why Obama still opposes it

Or maybe he can look ahead to 2012 and see the pernicious effects of letting rule breakers have their way. Next primary season to start Thanksgiving, 2011?

by Wee Mama 2008-05-26 10:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Wonder why Obama still opposes it

Or maybe he could spearhead an effort to reform the entire process.  Nah, that sounds too much like work.  Obama will be too busy solving the world's problems with flowery speeches to do any of that.

by therealdeal 2008-05-26 11:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Wonder why Obama still opposes it

He may well spearhead such a reform, but no one could do that in the middle of a primary campaign - it has to wait for later.

by Wee Mama 2008-05-26 11:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Wonder why Obama still opposes it

Sorry, should've made it more clear in my reply that I was referring to 2012 elections, as was the poster before me.  

I do hope that Obama, Clinton, or another top Democrat makes primary reform a top issue for the party, and can get something done in time for '12.

by therealdeal 2008-05-26 11:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Turns to Lies and Attacks on Hillary For

Scoreboard.

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner 2008-05-26 08:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Turns to

I dont get this.  Even if you add in the delagates from Fl and split them 60 / 40 in MI BO is still ahead in the pledged delegates.  So can someone explain to me why they should not be seated?  It seems to me it doesnt change the math?

david

by giusd 2008-05-26 08:40AM | 0 recs
Ask Obama

I don't get it either. What is he thinking?

by catfish2 2008-05-26 08:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Ask Obama

Obama is not in charge of the rules and bylaws committee.  He has stated his desire for the delegates to be seated, but the exact nature of nay eventual compromise is not under his control.

by protothad 2008-05-26 10:57AM | 0 recs
principle?

They were not valid elections by the standards of the primary. The electorate in each case was informed the vote would not count... which makes the end result something of a self-selected straw poll. Florida is arguable- because turnout was fairly strong due to measures on the ballot. Michigan's turnout was pathetic, and has about as much meaning as internet polling even when one chooses a fair allocation of the uncommitteds.

The party will work out a compromise by which delegations from the states participate in the convention... and in doing so they may end up validating the Florida election to some degree. The   results of the Michigan ballot will never be taken seriously- and they should not be.

by Casuist 2008-05-26 08:50AM | 0 recs
So he'd rather lose in November

than uphold a few votes.

by catfish2 2008-05-26 09:00AM | 0 recs
your implication...

that somehow disrespecting the Michigan "vote" at this point will cost him the state in the general election is irrational nonsense.

by Casuist 2008-05-26 09:15AM | 0 recs
Re: your implication...

Not really. Michigan has voted Democratic in the last 4 presidential elections with slimmer and slimmer margins between the Dem and Republican votes.

Michigan has cast its Electoral College votes for the Democrats in four straight Presidential elections and it would be difficult for Obama or Clinton to reach the White House without carrying the state. However, the economically devastated state has been trending Republican in recent elections--Bill Clinton won Michigan by thirteen points in 1996, Al Gore won by five in 2000, and John Kerry won by just three points in 2004.

Rasmussen Reports

Let's face it, we need happy voters in Michigan.

by skohayes 2008-05-26 02:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Turns to

He's thinking it is up to the DNC.

by Same As It Ever Was 2008-05-26 10:09AM | 0 recs
Because there must be a penalty

Otherwise, the DNC loses control over the entire process.  

And before you start saying "good" --- if you care about primary reform, I assure you that leaving it up to the individual states will take us in the OPPOSITE direction.

Forget primaries and caucuses - we might return to the days of state bosses simply allocating their delegates.

The DNC has to maintain control over the primary process - and to do so, it requires punishing states that knowingly break DNC rules.

50% is fine by me.

Stripping all supers and leaving the pledged delegates is fine by me.

But MI and FL cannot simply skate by the rules and be seated as if they didn't break them - or else the primary process will only get worse.

by zonk 2008-05-26 01:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Turns to Lies and Attacks on Hillary For

Someone please delete this diary. It is nonsense and troll based. What a waste of time.

by MissVA 2008-05-26 08:44AM | 0 recs
Looks pretty well-sourced

to me. But here's another:

By WILLIAM MARCH and ELAINE SILVESTRINI The Tampa Tribune

Published: September 30, 2007

TAMPA - Barack Obama hinted during a Tampa fundraiser Sunday that if he's the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, he'll seat a Florida delegation at the party's national convention, despite national party sanctions prohibiting it.

Obama also appeared to violate a pledge he and the other leading candidates took by holding a brief news conference outside the fundraiser. That was less than a day after the pledge took effect Saturday, and Obama is the first Democratic presidential candidate to visit Florida since then.

And another:

Obama says he did not campaign in MI or FLA, but he failed to say a week before the SC primary he took out air time for a campaign ad on the CNN channel that aired in millions of homes, including FLA. This ad also ran after SC before the FLA primary.

by catfish2 2008-05-26 08:47AM | 0 recs
Diary should stay

Why are you having trouble facing the reality of this diary?

by pan230oh 2008-05-26 11:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Diary should stay

The reality of it?

The diarist claims Hillary has ALWAYS been for counting Florida and Michigan, which is verifiably untrue. She's on record multiple times saying that they would not count. Members of her staff helped write the rules. She signed the pledge. She's since blocked proposals for counting Florida and Michigan that she doesn't agree with.

That's the reality. I think it's the diarist who is having trouble facing the facts.

by jdusek 2008-05-26 01:16PM | 0 recs
If wishing could make it so ...

No matter how virulent the anti-Clinton comments, nothing is going to change the facts-of-the-matter that this diary so carefully summarizes. I am completely in the camp that puts the onus of the most lies, hypocrisy, and negative framing square in the laps of Barack Obama and David Axelrod. If you need further proof, he has already started the same game with McCain. The Republicans will have no similar respect for party allegiance or any otherwise honorable consideration for the less experienced candidate.

by pan230oh 2008-05-26 08:47AM | 0 recs
Re: If wishing could make it so ...

Selective reality must be nice.

by mikeinsf 2008-05-26 10:09AM | 0 recs
Re: If wishing could make it so ...

I think the Obama supporters have the corner on selective reality.

by Mags 2008-05-26 10:30AM | 0 recs
So many &quot;ifs&quot;...

Like, "we're winning the popular vote, IF we exclude four caucus states, IF no one in Michigan would vote for Obama, and IF we accept the results of the Florida 'primary', even though it was so distorted it doesn't even meet international standards for  free and fair elections.

Here's my "if": If MI and FL were elections in Venezuela, the entire world would be telling Chavez how undemocratic the results were.

by mikeinsf 2008-05-26 10:41AM | 0 recs
Re: If wishing could make it so ...

How true. An Obama supporter even suggested that someone would have voted for Obama in Michigan. Unbelievable.

Florida is the Zimbabwe of this Primary season.

by Iago 2008-05-26 12:07PM | 0 recs
Re: If wishing could make it so ...

I would love to know what in the world you are thinking of as you write this stuff.  I won't hold my breath for a reply, but what in the world could you be referring to regardingObama vs. McCain?  

by oliver cromwell 2008-05-26 10:55AM | 0 recs
Re: If wishing could make it so ...

Every time Barack Obama criticizes McCain in any way whatsoever, his campaign goes on this long "how DARE you" diatribe.  They're softening up the ground to prepare negative attacks by making it seem as if everything Barack Obama says about McCain is out-of-bounds.

That's what the commenter is thinking of.  Poor John McCain.

by Jess81 2008-05-26 01:06PM | 0 recs
Re: If wishing could make it so ...

Presumably, this "honorable consideration" you allude to is borne out in claims supporting the opposing party's candidate for meeting the CIC threshold.

by Sumo Vita 2008-05-26 06:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Turns to Lies

It seems to me that there is a new sexist twist going on, not only is her experience less valid because she was married to a president, but she's so powerful she must be demonized forever. If Barack really thought he had it sewed up, and he probably has, he'd understand that it's time to stop demonizing her and win her supporters, he already has the ones that hate her, and the ones that will forgive him anything. But no, she's seen as so powerful she can come back and beat him soundly if he doesn't keep stomping on her. It's weird, can he never act like a winner?  

by anna shane 2008-05-26 08:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Turns to Lies

A new sexism going on? Wow! Everythiing with you is based on sexism. You really do seem to have some major issues with MEN.

by venician 2008-05-26 08:53AM | 0 recs
So odd - he &quot;won&quot; but keeps fighting her

What is he up to?

by catfish2 2008-05-26 09:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Turns to Lies

I think you just hate men.

by kasjogren 2008-05-26 09:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Turns to Lies

on the contrary, but I do find it amusing how much some of us scare some of them.  Damn amusing.

by anna shane 2008-05-26 09:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Turns to Lies

You're so right...I'm soooooo scared, I even slept with the light on last night...

by hootie4170 2008-05-26 11:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Turns to Lies

I'm afraid you're confusing being feared with being irritating.

by Sumo Vita 2008-05-26 05:29PM | 0 recs
How would it look if he was silent?

Clinton's ridiculous tying of the situation in Florida and Michigan to the 2000 election, slavery, and Zimbabwe requires Obama to respond.

How is that demonizing anyone?

by emptythreatsfarm 2008-05-26 09:51AM | 0 recs
Re: How would it look if he was silent?

that he feels it's necessary to respond by smearing her?  He can start to see the best in others, that would be a nice start.  It would at least be a beginning. He need not respond at all? She's making a case for voters, and whether or not he sees it as challenging him personally it isn't.  Seating those two states won't change anything, she's seen as having those votes by normal people, and she can't catch up in pledged delegates, he'd only look big and confident if he agreed that those votes must be counted.  

by anna shane 2008-05-26 09:59AM | 0 recs
What?

Hillary is a big girl, right?  Feminism is about competing on an equal playing field.  If she tossess poo around then I think he's got every right to toss it back at her and frankly, I think he just might be behaving a bit sexist because in my opinion he isn't going after her nearly as much as she deserves at this point.  She needs the political equivalent of a drop kick at this point and he's just sparring with her.

I guess he figures why waste the energy.  The primary is over in this little world we like to call 'reality'.

by lollydee 2008-05-26 11:00AM | 0 recs
Re: How would it look if he was silent?

In what sense did he smear her?  As has been posted and discussed ad nauseum...  (is it in any way possible that you don't know what Senator Clinton told New hampshire NPR?)... she DID NOT start fighting for those votes to count or discuss victory in terms beyond reaching 2025 delegates until it became clear that she wasn't going to be the first to reach that milestone.  How in the world is Obama mentioning that fact a smear?  That is a simple recourse to the timeline of events and statements about those events from her camp.  This is far too much like banging a head against a wall...

by oliver cromwell 2008-05-26 11:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Turns to Lies

Sure.  When she decides to lose graciously.  As it is she's set herself on a path of destruction.  She will not allow herself to be ignored.

by Same As It Ever Was 2008-05-26 10:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Turns to Lies

It's not a new sexism; it's a new, more desperate talking point from Anna.

by mikeinsf 2008-05-26 10:42AM | 0 recs
Re:

I don't see any lie.  She was against seating them before they became necessary for her to win.  She still has people on her payroll who actually stripped the delegates.

Has she ever acknowledged the role that Ickes played, or how she can still have him on her campaign staff?

by rfahey22 2008-05-26 08:51AM | 0 recs
Obama was for seating them before he was

against it. And when was she against seating them?

by catfish2 2008-05-26 09:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama was for seating them before he was

Your comebacks are like liferafts from the HMS Failboat.

by kasjogren 2008-05-26 09:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama was for seating them before he was

What, you have no response because you  know she's right ~ so you comment on her "comebacks?  Pretty transparent.

by Mags 2008-05-26 09:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama was for seating them before he was

When she rejected the compromise floated by the MI state party... head against wall again...and again...

by oliver cromwell 2008-05-26 11:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama was for seating them before he was

When she agreed not to participate in the elections.

When she said the would not count.

When the people in her campaign actually voted to strip their delegates.  Good lord.

by Jess81 2008-05-26 01:12PM | 0 recs
Obama Turns to Lies and Attacks

I would be embarrassed if I were him.  But that takes integrity......rest my case.

Never saw before his breaking the DNC rules pledge.  That ego and a chance for camera time just wipes away any common sense, eh?

by thebluenote 2008-05-26 09:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Turns to Lies and Attacks

Never saw before his breaking the DNC rules pledge.

Please tell me what pledge Obama broke.

by Sam Wise Gingy 2008-05-26 09:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Turns to Lies and Attacks

The one about not campaigning in Florida.  

by Mags 2008-05-26 09:35AM | 0 recs
See my comment below

The real Florida campaigner was Hillary.  

by kellogg 2008-05-26 09:37AM | 0 recs
Re: See my comment below

Sorry, but your "hit piece" from The Nation is just that ~ a hit piece.  Both candidates held fundraisers which they were allowed to do.

by Mags 2008-05-26 09:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Turns to Lies and Attacks

He never broke this pledge. He ran ads on national tv, and FL is part of the nation so some people there saw them too.

This was all cleared with the early states (who the pledge was made to).

by Brannon 2008-05-26 09:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Turns to Lies and Attacks

you're saying he found a loophole, and so he did. He got that through because he bought a block that he knew included Florida. Somehow she was able to campaign in neighboring states without including Florida, but he did find a loophole.  She made a protest, and then dropped it, I think she knew that if she won fairly in Florida that her votes would have more gravitas since he'd found a loophole that allowed him to break those rules. but, turns out the media likes him, they always repeat neither campaigned there, never mention Barack had TV ads but got away with it because he found a loophole. Only the voters care, and remember.  

by anna shane 2008-05-26 10:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Turns to Lies and Attacks

Wrong.  Only the Clinton sycophants on a blog care, or for that matter even think he violated the pledge.

by Same As It Ever Was 2008-05-26 10:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Turns to Lies and Attacks

http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/01/ 21/team-clinton-says-obama-broke-the-rul es/

"Obama spokesman Bill Burton says the cable networks told the campaign that it would be impossible to run national ads excluding only Florida, and that they consulted with South Carolina Democratic Party Chair Carol Fowler before buying the ad time. She said she didn't consider the national buy to be a violation of the pledge."

by Brannon 2008-05-26 02:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Turns to Lies and Attacks

Oh really!?  So no other candidates ran "national"ads?  Are you seriously still using that lame excuse?!

by Mags 2008-05-26 10:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Turns to Lies and Attacks

http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/01/ 21/team-clinton-says-obama-broke-the-rul es/

"Obama spokesman Bill Burton says the cable networks told the campaign that it would be impossible to run national ads excluding only Florida, and that they consulted with South Carolina Democratic Party Chair Carol Fowler before buying the ad time. She said she didn't consider the national buy to be a violation of the pledge."

by Brannon 2008-05-26 02:19PM | 0 recs
Ads ran after SC and before FL
Isn't that funny:
Obama says he did not campaign in MI or FLA, but he failed to say a week before the SC primary he took out air time for a campaign ad on the CNN channel that aired in millions of homes, including FLA. This ad also ran after SC before the FLA primary.
by catfish2 2008-05-26 10:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Ads ran after SC and before FL

http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/01/ 21/team-clinton-says-obama-broke-the-rul es/

"Obama spokesman Bill Burton says the cable networks told the campaign that it would be impossible to run national ads excluding only Florida, and that they consulted with South Carolina Democratic Party Chair Carol Fowler before buying the ad time. She said she didn't consider the national buy to be a violation of the pledge."

by Brannon 2008-05-26 02:18PM | 0 recs
PWNED!!!!! !!!!ELEVENTY!!!! n/t

by kellogg 2008-05-26 02:26PM | 0 recs
The biggest joke?

If the situation was reversed most of these Hillary supporters and Hillary herself would be going on and on about how it's not fair to change the rules and award delegates from elections that weren't supposed to count.

This has nothing to do with "counting votes"

It's a joke

by CaptainMorgan 2008-05-26 09:05AM | 0 recs
Re: The biggest joke?

GregNYC... please stop with the childish TR abuse

by CaptainMorgan 2008-05-26 09:20AM | 0 recs
You said it!

It is impossible to imagine that Hillary would behave the same way if the situation were reversed.  It would be all about rules, baby.

by kellogg 2008-05-26 10:08AM | 0 recs
Exactly...

and I have yet to hear a SINGLE Clinton supporter (including Jerome for that matter) answer this point with a reasoned response beyond "Nah-uh!".  I suspect the wait will be quite awhile as to admit the truth would take away the only argument HRC has for staying in the race.

by Seeking Cincinnatus 2008-05-26 11:27AM | 0 recs
Obama doesn't need Florida....

To hell with the electoral map. Word is out that Obama has created a new map that does not include Florida. The electoral map is old school. "Yes he can" create a new map. Crazy :D

by soyousay 2008-05-26 09:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama doesn't need Florida....

Whatever

by herenow 2008-05-26 09:40AM | 0 recs
but it's not &quot;whatever&quot;

It's for real, see below:

Three factors underpin Obama's new electoral map: the West, nonwhites and the well-educated.
Fast-growing Western states have become a land of opportunity for Democrats. The GOP's social conservatism and support for Big Business have irked longtime libertarians, non-fundamentalist newcomers and environmentally conscious voters.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/040 8/9749.html

by soyousay 2008-05-26 10:15AM | 0 recs
Great article

Interesting explaination of BHO route to the WH.

by Ida B 2008-05-26 11:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama doesn't need Florida....

Are you satisfied with a party that never reaches beyond its traditional bastions to put more of the republic in play?  Seriously?  Especially when the map we have been playing with for many years now has had such devestating results for our party and nation?  We are in the business of turning as many states blue as possible, including FL and MI.  Contrary to the jist of this article and many who support its non-reality based claims...Senator Obama, the presumptive nominee, will agree to compromises to have delegations seated from these states and he will campaign hard in all of them.  He will likely win MI, and when it is all said and done I would guess he will be more competitive in FL in November than you might guess based on the curent snapshots that are taken there.  Regardless of how it turns out, he will continue to grow the map.  I am astonished that you seem to want to sit on you laurels and rehash old fights year after year after year in the same old battleground states.  

by oliver cromwell 2008-05-26 11:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama doesn't need Florida....

I would not be counting on Michigan just yet:

Michigan has cast its Electoral College votes for the Democrats in four straight Presidential elections and it would be difficult for Obama or Clinton to reach the White House without carrying the state. However, the economically devastated state has been trending Republican in recent elections--Bill Clinton won Michigan by thirteen points in 1996, Al Gore won by five in 2000, and John Kerry won by just three points in 2004.

Rasmussen Reports

by skohayes 2008-05-26 02:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama doesn't need Florida....

Look at the tenor of the post.  it's about campaigning and working hard in all of the states.  If you consider that "counting on"... Sorry...

by oliver cromwell 2008-05-26 04:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama doesn't need Florida....

Since you've said repeatedly that you have no problem with a President McCain, I'm not sure why electability should make any difference to you.

by Jess81 2008-05-26 01:17PM | 0 recs
No, Obama is not lying

When he says "They weren't stirring it up when they didn't need the delegates."  He's simply recounting what happened.  

Do you need to be reminded of what Hillary said in Feburary?

Each of us has to get to 2025 delegates.

Now, of course, it's a different story.  Why?  Because without the MI and FL delegates she loses (more clearly than she would with them).  And so she changes the target and gins up a ridiculous firestorm about disenfranchisement.  Hyperbole, anyone?  

by kellogg 2008-05-26 09:22AM | 0 recs
And another blatant Obama hit piece..

gets on the rec list.

Just par for the course, it seems.

by Massadonious 2008-05-26 09:26AM | 0 recs
Obama held a presser in September 2007

But Hillary had several speaking engagements in Florida the weekend before the primary.  

But Iowa and New Hampshire are history and, after a landslide loss in South Carolina on Saturday, Clinton needs a win.

So she has begun appearing in Florida in anticipation of Tuesday's Democratic primary there.

Clinton's move insults not just the voters in Iowa and New Hampshire who trusted her pledge but also the voters of all the states that respected the DNC's outline for the nominating process. Effectively, she is saying to Democrats in states that will participate in February 5th's "Super Tuesday" primaries and caucuses and in the two dozen states that have scheduled later votes: You may follow the rules if you please, but I write the rules as I please.

That's the raw political reality of Clinton's move, even if she is spinning it as an embrace of participatory democracy.

"Hundreds of thousands of people have already voted in Florida and I want them to know I will be there to be part of what they have tried to do to make sure their voices are heard," said Clinton before jetting to Sarasota and Miami for events on Sunday.

The Clinton campaign claims that the senator from New York is abiding by the no-campaigning pledge because Sunday's two Florida events were technically closed to the public. But the stops were treated as major news events in a state where many Democrats have expressed anger over the absence of the party's presidential candidates during a period when Florida is overrun by Republican contenders.

Hillary's Florida Flip

Obama's little press conference five months before the primary is nothing compared to Hillary's actual non-campaign campaign.

by kellogg 2008-05-26 09:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama held a presser in September 2007

Typical double standard by The Nation.  Both candidates held fundraisers in Florida, which they were allowed to do.  

by Mags 2008-05-26 09:38AM | 0 recs
You're right! Exactly the same!

Not. The Nation was not the only outlet to observe HRC's tacit Florida campaign in the weeks before primary.  

by kellogg 2008-05-26 09:56AM | 0 recs
Re: You're right! Exactly the same!

Really ~ you have any links?  You have anything that proves she was there for anything other than fundraisers, which were allowed and which both candidates held?  Bring it on.

by Mags 2008-05-26 10:29AM | 0 recs
A couple of links

The Manchester NH Union Leader says she campaigned in the Florida primary:

COURTING VOTERS in Iowa and New Hampshire, last August Sen. Hillary Clinton signed a pledge not to "campaign or participate" in the Michigan or Florida Democratic primaries. She participated in both primaries and is campaigning in Florida. Which proves, again, that Hillary Clinton is a liar.

On January 28, the Sarasota Herald Tribune wrote that:
Sen. Hillary Clinton appeared to break her pledge against public campaigning in Florida on Sunday by greeting a group of neighbors waiting outside a private fundraiser.

Slate and Salon also comment on her hypocrisy, noting that she only started caring about their delegate votes (as compared to a meaningless "seating" at a settled convention) after losing Iowa.  She publicly pushed for counting Floriday when?  The weekend before the primary.  

I'd say that neither of them violated the letter of the law, but Hillary violated the spirit of it time and time again.  

by kellogg 2008-05-26 11:00AM | 0 recs
Re: A couple of links

Well, at least you made me laugh!  Are you seriously going with those??

by Mags 2008-05-26 11:04AM | 0 recs
Oh, you're right.

Much better to go with Hillary logic. "Florida = Zimbabwe."

by kellogg 2008-05-26 11:10AM | 0 recs
Re: A couple of links

So to be clear...You ask for links and then you get links.  Then you simply dismiss the links you get.  I suppose it would only be true if it was reported by mydd.

by oliver cromwell 2008-05-26 11:13AM | 0 recs
Re: A couple of links

Did you read his links?  

by Mags 2008-05-26 11:16AM | 0 recs
More links

Miami Herald: A Clinton Ralley -- Without Clinton

Politico: A Pro-Clinton Robocall in Florida

St. Petersburg Times: Clinton is Coming, but it won't be Hillary.  This one is worth quoting:

Yes, the Democratic front-runner (Clinton) is avoiding overt campaigning in Florida. But she's also the only Democrat willing to test the limits of that pledge to the Democratic chairs in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada not to campaign in any other state with a primary sooner than Feb. 5.

The latest example comes Oct. 21, when Bill Clinton headlines a Clinton fundraiser in Miami, in which students, teachers, Democratic executive committee members and union members can get in for $50. Fundraising is allowed under that pledge, but this veers close to a rally.

(That's a pro-Hillary article, by the way!)

And let's not forget Hillary's just in time victory rally, which surely helped get out the vote.

Are all of these hit pieces?  All laughable?  Hell, the pro-Hillary St. Petersburg Times says (let me repeat) "she's . . . the only Democrat willing to test the limits of that pledge."

by kellogg 2008-05-26 11:22AM | 0 recs
Re: More links

Her rally started after the polls had closed,  You are grasping at straws trying to make a point.  It just doesn't stand up to your original claim.

by Mags 2008-05-26 11:26AM | 0 recs
It was advertised well before

And of course you have answered none of my other "straws."

by kellogg 2008-05-26 11:30AM | 0 recs
Re: It was advertised well before

Did you read your other links?  Because I did, and there is no there there, as they say.  What exactly is it that you believe yourlinks prove?  Please be specific.

by Mags 2008-05-26 11:34AM | 0 recs
They show that she violated the spirit

of the pledge, and that this was well-known among the press.  They do not show that she violated the letter of the pledge, but I have not said that.   I said (and the pro-Clinton St. Petersburg Times agrees) that she stretched the pledge more than anybody else.  

by kellogg 2008-05-26 11:36AM | 0 recs
Re: They show that she violated the spirit

Ok, so we agree that she did not violate the "pledge".  Did Obama?

by Mags 2008-05-26 12:04PM | 0 recs
No. n/t

by kellogg 2008-05-26 02:04PM | 0 recs
Re: No. n/t

Again with the intellectual dishonesty.

by Mags 2008-05-26 02:05PM | 0 recs
WTF?

You haven't responded to any of the substance of what I've posted, including the description of HRC as pushing the envelope more than any other Democratic candidate.

Indeed neither violated the pledge.  

However, Hillary claimed he did in the hope that it would green-light her own hopes to campaign (as some of my links point out). However, the pretext failed to gain traction.

by kellogg 2008-05-26 02:09PM | 0 recs
By the way, you shifted the terms

I have referred to her campaign as a "tacit" campaign, as a "non-campaign campaign," and as violating the "spirit" of the rule if not the letter.  You are asking if she did anything other than fundraisers -- in essence, asking if she violated the letter of the law.  This is what I've come to expect from some (only some) anti-Obama folks.  Their precedent, sadly, is found in Senator Clinton herself, who would not have given a hanging chad about the Florida primaries if they had gone the other way.

by kellogg 2008-05-26 11:34AM | 0 recs
Re: By the way, you shifted the terms

Actually, Obama held several fundraisers as well:

Obama raised $1.71 million in the state in January and February, adding to the $3.5 million he raised in Florida last year. The state represented his ninth biggest source of campaign donations among states for both months.

http://www.mgwashington.com/index.php/ne ws/article/despite-delegate-flap-clinton -obama-still-attract-florida-donations/7 73/

by skohayes 2008-05-26 02:49PM | 0 recs
As I said,

I never claimed he didn't.

by kellogg 2008-05-26 02:56PM | 0 recs
Re: As I said,

But you keep referring to fundraising events as Hillary "pushing the envelope", while ignoring that Obama was also fundraising in Florida.

by skohayes 2008-05-26 03:09PM | 0 recs
The idea that HRC tested the limits

was from the pro-Hillary St. Petersburg Times, which meant it as a compliment.

Examples?  The event hosted by Debbie Wasserman Schultz (referenced in the Miami Herald article I linked) and the Bill Clinton fundraiser that "veers on a rally" (St. Petersburg Times, also linked).  The victory rally at the moment the polls closed not only celebrated her inevitable but meaningless win, but also increased Clinton turnout.  

Did the Obama campaign do anything comparable?  Not as far as I know, which was why the SPT said Hillary was "the only Democrat willing to test the limits of that pledge."

by kellogg 2008-05-26 03:55PM | 0 recs
Everybody knew HRC

was campaigning in Florida.  She went there and held press-covered events the weekend before the primary.  She talked about "trying to win Florida" before the primary.  She had a public event declaring victory the night of a primary she earlier promised would not count.  

by kellogg 2008-05-26 09:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Everybody knew HRC

can you cite or link just one, please? - I believe you are simply reciting from Primary According to Obama/Axelrod.

by pan230oh 2008-05-26 11:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Everybody knew HRC

See the thread above, which provides extensive links.  See also what I am claiming: not that she violated the pledge as such, but that she stretched the rules as much as possible and more than anybody else including Obama.

by kellogg 2008-05-26 11:37AM | 0 recs
Actually, it's the diarist

who has turned to lies and attacks on Obama. To no good purpose since he is the Democratic nominee.

It's to be hoped that she'll lay blind hatred and bitterness aside and stop working toward Bush's tird term.

by Freespeechzone 2008-05-26 09:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Actually, it's the diarist

What lies in particular are you referring to? - I believe that all of the diarists statements are supported with references - unlike yours.

by pan230oh 2008-05-26 11:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Actually, it's the diarist

Lies can be referenced.

by Freespeechzone 2008-05-26 12:20PM | 0 recs
Not true that Obama ran campaign ads in Florida

He ran ads on national cable which could not be removed from Florida's viewers.  But as far as I know, he did not run ads on Florida stations as such.  I'll be happy to revise this view if someone can provide evidence to the contrary.

by kellogg 2008-05-26 09:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Turns to Lies and Attacks on Hillary For

pointless diary.  why is this on rec?

by math 2008-05-26 09:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Turns to Lies and Attacks on Hillary For

If you have to ask . . .

by kellogg 2008-05-26 10:01AM | 0 recs
It's funny.

Once you start reading these, you can't look away.  They're so filled with odd delusions that you wonder if they're handing out more than campaign fliers at these HRC rallies.

by lollydee 2008-05-26 11:11AM | 0 recs
slow-motion train wreck n/t

by kellogg 2008-05-26 11:22AM | 0 recs
Obama is right

Hillary needs to stop the posturing over MI/FL.

by haystax calhoun 2008-05-26 09:46AM | 0 recs
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz

wake me up when this is over.

by spacemanspiff 2008-05-26 09:51AM | 0 recs
DING DING DING

It's been over since February.  :P

by lollydee 2008-05-26 11:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Turns to Lies and Attacks on Hillary For

When Clinton had the arrogance last week to compare the MI/FL situation to abolitionist/slavery..
civil rights/Jim Crow and worse...and the current situation in Zimbabwe?

I give this to all you Sen Clinton supporters..
In 2002 Clinton supported Iraq Invasion
In 2002 Obama did not..

Memorial Day?
(This was from AFSC "Eyes wide Open" traveling exhibit that came here to  Denver Oct. 2008..when we set up only 2,800 pairs of boots...There was also recognition of killed Iraqi)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=moLKwrSc3 A0

by nogo postal 2008-05-26 09:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Turns to Lies and Attacks on Hillary For

Note the date was Oct 2006.sorry..

by nogo postal 2008-05-26 09:59AM | 0 recs
This kind of stuff is soooo over.

Clinton is done, cooked, lost, over.

Let's not waste our time.  Diehard Hillary fans too, let's get going together.  If you're really stupid/stubborn enough to vote for McCain, please do so, all twelve of you.  

The rest (the vast majority) of rational Hillary people, let's join together and move onward towards November (like I had to when Edwards lost).  

We have an election to win!

by Garret 2008-05-26 10:00AM | 0 recs
by nogo postal 2008-05-26 10:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Turns to Lies and Attacks on Hillary For

"I seem to recall Senator Clinton has always been fighting to have Florida and Michigan count"

Cute how your timeline only goes back to Jan. 29.

Will you address why she said "it's clear Michigan won't count for anything?"  Will a single Hillary supporter ever address why she was for the DNC rules before she was against them?  I keep asking this, but... silence.

Anyone? Linda?  Anyone?

More reality on Clinton myths about 'disenfranchisement:
http://www.sodahead.com/blog/4837/

by mikeinsf 2008-05-26 10:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Turns to Lies and Attacks on Hillary For

Didn't think so.  Not a single person has answered this.  Not one.

by mikeinsf 2008-05-26 10:43AM | 0 recs
They won't

Facts are scary, scary things.

by lollydee 2008-05-26 11:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Turns to Lies and Attacks on Hillary For

I'm kind of new here, but shouldn't there be some set of standards for diaries/diarists?  This piece is terribly written and full of (what I hope are merely) typos.  If the author's argument weren't already undermined by the distortion of his/her explicit bias, the quality of writing would discredit him/her on its own.  I assume the site is not trying to look professional, but it doesn't need to look like it was written by text messaging.

Serious question: who gets to write the diaries?  Anyone?

Can a kind soul direct me to the page that explains how this site "works?" (recs, etc.)

Thanks!

by NeverNude 2008-05-26 10:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Turns to Lies and Attacks on Hillary For

Dude. Just a heads up. The same 4 or 5 "deadenders" write hit pieces on Obama everyday. They then enlist the help of Hillaryis44 (spamming their site to get them to come over and rect) and taylormarsh, talkleft, no quarter and the other primary Hate sites.

It's ugly. It's fun to make them look like fools in the comments section though.

by spacemanspiff 2008-05-26 10:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Turns to Lies and Attacks on Hillary For

you can't rec any diaries at first. After a couple of days a Rec button will appear on the top right hand side of the page.

by spacemanspiff 2008-05-26 10:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Turns to Lies and Attacks on Hillary For

Thanks, both of you.

by NeverNude 2008-05-26 10:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Turns to Lies and Attacks on Hillary For

Well, some people just copy and paste whatever the day's talking points are from Clinton's official website, and pass that off as a diary.  Actually, those are the ones that tend to be the most popular here.  This one is actually quite advanced by comparison.

by rfahey22 2008-05-26 11:14AM | 0 recs
OMGWTFLOL

"but it doesn't need to look like it was written by text messaging."

WHN R U COMING OVR?  HILLZ IS ON TV N WE R GOING TO DRNK A SHOT EVRY TIME SHE SZ DISENFRANCHIZ!!!

by lollydee 2008-05-26 11:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Turns to Lies and Attacks on Hillary For

Oh such innocence on display. Did it ever occur to you to read the damn FAQS?  You're not fooling anyone.

by Scotch 2008-05-26 01:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Turns to Lies and Attacks on Hillary For

Despite what sounds like sarcasm, this was almost a helpful post.

I didn't know there was a FAQ page; I have been looking for it all over the home page.  Can someone direct me to it?

by NeverNude 2008-05-26 10:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Turns to Lies and Attacks on Hillary For

It is also the case that many of these diarists (e.g. Alegre) who appear on the rec list every day on MyDD have participated in conference calls with HRC and her campaign, so it's actually more direct and coordinated than you would realize. The lack of professionalism is reflected in HRC's own sad, desperate, decline. This is all she has left since people who are somewhat rational (i.e. the mainstream media) have rejected her irrational and desperate arguments. It's pretty sad when the same media that bought into Bush's Iraq war rationale have responded somewhat rationally to HRC's equally troubling distortions. I think Clinton just thought that she would get away with all of this, the same way she got away with so much else (sniper fire, anyone?).

by DrPolitics 2008-05-26 01:42PM | 0 recs
Can you say &quot;Double Standard&quot;


by brathor 2008-05-26 10:35AM | 0 recs
Wrong

The MI and FL delegates will be seated.

Obama, Clinton, the other Democrats, the states of FL and MI and the DNC are all equally to blame.

They'll vote again in the General Election.

They can vote in the General Election.

End of story.

by RussTC3 2008-05-26 10:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Turns to Lies and Attacks on Hillary For

I take it that this diary is a parody of wacky things the most insane Clinton cultists say?

Well done, most enjoyable.

Thanks :-)

by wrb 2008-05-26 10:37AM | 0 recs
Sorry, Obama's right

You're wrong.

Clinton didn't give two shits about MI/FL until she needed them.

In December, she said the race would be over on 2/5.  It was with the help of her supporters at the DNC that MI/FL were originally stripped of their delegates.  She supported that, until she didn't win on 2/5 and had to actually compete for the nomination.

You can keep blaming Obama if you want, and you most surely will,  but you're just flat out wrong.

by jaywillie 2008-05-26 11:10AM | 0 recs
This again?

"I personally did not think it made any difference whether my name was on the ballot. You know, It's clear this election they are having is not going to count for anything."

Hillary Clinton, Oct 1

by Newcomer2 2008-05-26 11:15AM | 0 recs
Who's Whining?

I consider this cartoon to be an exercise in bullying and submit that it has no place in this discussion.

by pan230oh 2008-05-26 11:27AM | 0 recs
Lately? John McCain.

by Jess81 2008-05-26 01:12PM | 0 recs
here's an honest question for the diarist

My mother lives in FL.  My mother supports Obama.  My mother did not vote in the Jan. election, because she was told by the candidates, the national party and the media that the election would not count.

How does Sen. Clinton's proposal to count the election results of 29 Jan. honor my mother's vote?  How does it "enfranchise" her?  The obvious answer is that it won't.  So let me ask you this: what is it that my mother did wrong in the above scenario that should disqualify her vote from counting?  Finally, by counting the votes of her neighbors and stamping what was a flawed election (that could have produced more votes for either candidate) with legitimacy, are we not doing the opposite of practicing democracy?

One last point: Floridians and Michiganers who are mad about the elections have ervery right to be.  but they shouldn't blame Obama (or Clinton) for the situation.  Or even the DNC.  It was the governors and the state legislators who decided they were more important than the calendar.  They were told there would be a penalty, they were told what that penalty was, and they decided to say screw it.  Those are the people who should be taking heat from Clinton, Obama and all their supporters right now...

by Dont tread on me 2008-05-26 11:41AM | 0 recs
Re: here's an honest question for the diarist

That was her choice.  She could have done some research and realized there would be an appeal and the possibility of some/all delegates being restored.  She also could have shown up to vote on the Homestead Exemption amendment.

by therealdeal 2008-05-26 11:51AM | 0 recs
Re: here's an honest question for the diarist

Exactly. She should have known Hillary was a liar. It was so obvious at the time.

by Cochrane 2008-05-26 12:00PM | 0 recs
Re: here's an honest question for the diarist

Uh, it has nothing to do with Hillary.  This was going to be appealed regardless.

by therealdeal 2008-05-26 02:06PM | 0 recs
Re: here's an honest question for the diarist

Don't tread. You say she didn't vote. I'm told that there was a property tax vote on that same ballot. I know there are some who would say,"Who would vote in a property tax?" There are folks who would if it was ear marked for education or other issues.  I also read here on myDD that there was at least a vote for mayor on one of the ballots. Voting for mayor and the property tax apparently did count. By staying home the Democrat voter who was told that this was an invalid vote would have missed voting on these other issues.

by 12 dogs and a blog 2008-05-26 12:55PM | 0 recs
Re: here's an honest question for the diarist

1) I don't know what town that mayoral vote was for, but it probably wasn't hers.  2) there were obviously other issues on the ballot.  She did not feel they were important to her, for whatever reason.  There are always elections and referendums being held, for things as minor as school boards and municipal government.  Do you always go and vote for those, each and every time?  Do you always vote in primaries, even after the nominee has been decided?  Perhaps you do, perhaps you don't.  My only point is that what Clinton and a lot of the commenters I've seen here are saying is let's take what was clearly a flawed process and call it normal or legitimate, because we've retroactively decided the laws weren't so grave.  And that kind of post-electoral game changing is flies in the face of the true practice of democracy, where enforcing the rules are critical to making the democratic system work.  

by Dont tread on me 2008-05-26 09:42PM | 0 recs
Re: here's an honest question for the diarist


The point I was trying to make is that folks stayed home because the heard the Democratic Party say the vote wasn't going to count. They could think that the whole vote didn't count and therefore stayed home missing the vote on the property tax and/or the Mayor's race thinking that they didn't count either.

Property tax votes in Florida? I mentioned this to someone who told me that property related taxes in Florida is a big deal.

by 12 dogs and a blog 2008-05-27 05:49AM | 0 recs
You expected something different?

Like maybe something other than 'politics as usual' from the 'hope and change' crowd?

It's 'change' all right, right over to the same ole same ole, subterfuge, backstabbing and politics of division.

I've expected nothing less from the DNC and Obama from sday one, and I say that as a Florida voter who NOW is registered NPA, thanks to the DNC's treatment of us.

Now that's the 'Dean scream' of 2008, cutting off Florida to spite his own '50 state' strategy.

Hillary should leave the race, stay out of the campaign, and finish her term in the Senate and shake the dust off her feet, not her shoulders, and never look back.  A citizenry this inclined to believe the absolute worst about her personally doesn't deserve the sweat off her little finger.

by emsprater 2008-05-26 11:59AM | 0 recs
Re: You expected something different?

"A citizenry this inclined to believe the absolute worst about her personally doesn't deserve the sweat off her little finger."

Since when do a public's bad opinions about a person indicate what this public "deserves"?

You're acting cultlike, divine metaphors and all. Will Pegasus spring from this sweat as it mixes with the dirt (godly fluids tend to cause this reaction)? Or will it stain some piece of paper in the shape of her Holy Visage like the shroud of Turin?

by Aris Katsaris 2008-05-26 12:18PM | 0 recs
He's a hypocrite

He will do and say anything to further his ambition. It's all about Obama. If that means truning the country into a strife torn third world country, dividing the party along racial lines and disenfranchising 2 million people and tealing their votes...so be it.

by tarheel74 2008-05-26 01:09PM | 0 recs
Uh oh, a No Quarter poster.

The whole thing about dividing the country along race lines and making it into a strife-torn third world nation smacks of the whole "race war" stuff they're gearing up for over at Larry Johnson's private klan rally.

by Jess81 2008-05-26 01:20PM | 0 recs
Re: He's a hypocrite

Simple question: Would the State Department consider the contests in Michigan and Florida "free and fair" elections?

by RP McMurphy 2008-05-26 01:37PM | 0 recs
Re: He's a hypocrite

can you please elaborate what was not free and unfair about these elections other than disenfranchising all these voters?

by tarheel74 2008-05-26 05:21PM | 0 recs
Re: He's a hypocrite

This point has been elaborated in painful details repeatedly in this diary and on this site. At this point, I'm forced to direct you to my sig for solace - clearly, rational explanations have achieved nothing.  

by Sumo Vita 2008-05-26 05:44PM | 0 recs
Re: He's a hypocrite

Ok, I'll relent and give you a 5 minutes version:

(1) Because DNC officially delegitimized those primaries - with HRC's approval.

(2) Because of the volume of citizenry that didn't vote in MI or FL because of (1).

(3) Because Obama's name wasn't even on the ballot in MI, implying that it couldn't even aspire to be called a beauty contest - never mind a legitimate primary.

by Sumo Vita 2008-05-26 05:53PM | 0 recs
OH, PLEEEEEASE!

PLEEEEASE. Because HRC won’t do anything to further her own ambition…like counting a primary no one other team showed up for.

by helo 2008-05-26 01:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Turns to Lies and Attacks

"Senator Obama, can you tell us why you have been blocking every effort to count millions of citizens votes in Michigan and Florida?"

Hi sweetums-- THOSE VOTES DIDN'T COUNT UNDER THE RULES!!!

by dsharma23 2008-05-26 02:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Turns to Lies and Attacks

Further, he has not "blocked every effort" to count MI & FL.

by Sumo Vita 2008-05-26 06:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Turns to Lies and Attacks on Hillary For

So apparently "always" starts the day she won the beauty contest?

When your diaries are this transparent, it's hard to believe you are doing your candidate any favors.

by Pragmatic Left 2008-05-26 02:58PM | 0 recs
Just playing for pride now

Yeah it would be nice to say she won the PV, but it won't change the verdict of the superdelegates.  They've decided that Obama is the candidate.  We need to respect the process.  He's won the most delegates, she might wind up winning the most popular votes. If she does, they both have a claim to it but it's the SD's call

by activatedbybush 2008-05-26 04:48PM | 0 recs
Last Gasp

by PD1769 2008-05-26 05:17PM | 0 recs
YIKES

"They weren't stirring it up when they didn't need the delegates," he said. "Let's not sort of pretend that we don't know what's going on. This is, from their perspective, their last slender hope to make arguments about how they can win."

I can not believe he just said that.  Just when I was starting to try to think positive thoughts about him, we goes off and diminishes Hillary and MI/FL like that.

I thought the new meme was "Obama will win even with FL/MI counted"?  I guess not since he's still clearly opposing it.  Really, he must know something we don't.  He's ahead by something like 180 delegates, and Hillary only has something like 100+ to gain from MI/FL...

unless...

they move to apply the penalty for campaigning in Florida.  That would be an enormous swing to Clinton.  Maybe that's the source of all his apprehension?

by BPK80 2008-05-26 05:47PM | 0 recs
Re: YIKES

You F-ing liar.

by comingawakening 2008-05-26 06:25PM | 0 recs
Re: YIKES

Hide rated for breaching the site's prohibition on personal attacks.

by BPK80 2008-05-26 06:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Turns to Lies and Attacks on Hillary For

Dream on.

I don't blame him for being angry. She is stirring up resentment with absolutely no discernible benefit, other than to trash his favorables with her supporters.

by Sumo Vita 2008-05-26 06:00PM | 0 recs
wow

I really cannot say anything else.

by woodinville 2008-05-26 06:13PM | 0 recs
Where are you, LindaSFNM?

Don't you have anything to say about the reams of responses to your diary? Or are you observing the traditions of the other much-esteemed drive-by diatribists?

by Sumo Vita 2008-05-26 06:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Turns to Lies and Attacks on Hillary For

All you need to hear is to HRC herself.

This "blogger" has not credibility!!

by comingawakening 2008-05-26 06:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Turns to Lies and Attacks on Hillary For

Will someone please delete Barack Obama, the man is weak and will never win a GE.

by steve468 2008-05-26 07:13PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads