Obama 08: Do Not Protest May 31st DNC R&B Committee

Emails from two sources verify that the Obama 08 campaign does not want protests on its behalf of the Democratic National Committee's May 31st Rules and Bylaws Committee meeting to decide the fate of Florida and Michigan.

The Obama Campaign has maintained a remarkable amount of message control through-out their campaign, a trait that has earned them a lot of respect from media and pols alike for their ability to stay on message.  This also has the advantage of preventing wild-card flaks (Geraldine, we're all looking at you) from embarassing the campaign, giving them more control over the money by funnelling funds away from the 527's, and most importantly, allowing them to set the tone.  You know, Obama's tone.

In line with their belief in message control, in this last leg of a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad campaign, they are asking us to stand down.  Don't do it.  Don't yell at the Committee.  Don't mock the people who've come to yell for Hillary.  Don't wave "Obama '08" signs in the faces of the DNC R&B Committee members.  Don't make a fuss they say--go register voters, in Virginia.

Excerpt from the email:

I don't mean to rain on anyone's parade, but under direction from
Chicago HQ we are being asked NOT to hold any events like this.  For
several political and media reasons, I have been asked to relay the
message that only those Obama supporters who obtained tickets to sit
inside the meeting should attend.  No outside
protests/rallies/gatherings, no matter how
peaceful/positive/well-intentioned.

If you would like to be involved in the counter-event (voter
registration in Northern VA) please let me know.

Yes, that's right, the Obama Campaign's neverending playbook of electoral aikido says don't protest, we've already won this fight.  Go prepare for the next fight: register voters in Virginia, the traditionally red state that recent demographic shifts and Obama-Mania have put into play, the 13 Electoral College Votes that we can take from the Republicans.

Many thanks,

SPX

x-posted at dailykos.com.

Tags: Barack Obama, Democratic National Committee (all tags)

Comments

168 Comments

I don't diary here often

but I thought this deserved more audience/cow bell.

by steampunkx 2008-05-27 12:37PM | 0 recs
When the facts and law are on your side

pounding the table is unnecessary and even counterproductive.  That is why only one side is pounding the table.

by JJE 2008-05-27 12:39PM | 0 recs
Not Quite

The other side is pounding the table because this is about voting rights ane we want our or our families voices to be heard.

Democrats - in case you missed this important point - count all the votes.  100 percent of the vote, 100 percent of the time.

by alegre 2008-05-27 12:48PM | 0 recs
Nonsense

this has nothing to do with voting rights.  It didn't back when Hillary was cool with it and it doesn't now.  

Nobody who cares about voting rights would want to defraud the voters as you do.  You dishonor real struggles for representation by comparing them to this cynical and transparent ploy.

by JJE 2008-05-27 12:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Nonsense

that's why he doesn't want you there?  Good call, I'd say.  

by anna shane 2008-05-27 01:07PM | 0 recs
Another substanceless reply

good job.  I'm sure Hillary wants you there screaming your nonsense at the committee.  Book your ticket if you haven't already!

by JJE 2008-05-27 01:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Another substanceless reply

I don't scream, nonsense or otherwise.  I'm not going but I'm very glad to see that he's exercised good judgement in keeping over the top rants off television. It's smart, I'm applauding his good sense here.  

by anna shane 2008-05-27 01:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Another substanceless reply

I think the Obama campaign's calculus is that chaos benefits Clinton.  The more it looks like a zoo, uncontrollable and wild, the better Clinton's case to go to convention and have the zoo there determine the nominee.

The screaming will be in the name of Florida and Michigan, but primarily it will be in the interest of Sen. Clinton.  I like her starting point of wanting even more than the vote she received out of Michigan, apparently reasoning that people would have voted for her twice if they could have.

by niksder 2008-05-27 01:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Another substanceless reply

in the short run maybe, but it won't' change the delegate count and the super's know about the vote, they're aware that Floridians are pissed and that they favor Hillary and want their votes to count. but in the long run it helps everyone, we don't who'll win the popular vote before it happens and there is always more street creds in the popular vote, think Gore. So in the end it'll help whoever wins the popular vote, and that'll be the majority of us.  

by anna shane 2008-05-27 01:38PM | 0 recs
except the "popular vote" is a misnomer
because it combines a bunch of unlikes and treats them as likes. The supers are smart enough to realize this as well.
by JJE 2008-05-27 02:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Another substanceless reply

If you use popular vote as a metric, then that means that a caucus state counts much less than an equivalently sized primary state--and that some caucus states don't count at all (because they didn't collect or report participation numbers).

What about their votes? Are they not supposed to count?

On a related question, how do you convince a SD from a caucus state that their state should get less of a say than an equivalently sized primary state?

by Brannon 2008-05-27 02:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Another substanceless reply

if you use that argument, which is valid from a certain perspective, then you have to also use the electoral map which gives it to Hillary in a landslide and in which John beats Barack.  There are oh so  many ways to count.  the popular vote is the least problematic.  

by anna shane 2008-05-27 03:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Another substanceless reply

Electoral maps this far out aren't a good predictor--at this point in 1991 Bill Clinton was a distant third behind Perot and George H.W. Bush. Hillary has gotten a bump since Obama & McCain & the media has backed off--I think that's all we're seeing here.

You and I are never going to agree on how to properly weight each factor to reach a conclusion, because if we did then we would both reach the same conclusion.

That said...you claim that popular vote is the least problematic, but it's hard for me to believe a metric which immediately disenfranchises 15+ states. I think that's a pretty tough sell to the SD's as well, especially the SD's from caucus states.

by Brannon 2008-05-27 03:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Another substanceless reply

you silly, she's been bumping since March. She's actually preferred as of now, it's not a bump, it's steady and growing. It's hard to spin why Barack is losing support and she's gaining it.  The media have been all over her, demanding she leave the race, and claiming he's all but president already. That usually give quite a bump, and it makes it look like some really aren't convinced they're ready to settle for him.  For Barack this can't look good.  Your arguments are very cute though.  Keep thinking.  

by anna shane 2008-05-27 03:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Another substanceless reply

Well, at least I'm cute. :-)

by Brannon 2008-05-27 04:10PM | 0 recs
growing so much
that she lost NC, OR, and barely won IN. Obama's coalition is as resilient as Hillary's. The question is whether Hillary's coalition are good Dems or care only about Hillary.
by JJE 2008-05-27 08:00PM | 0 recs
Re: growing so much

You finally got something right....Only care about Hillary!!!!!!....now you stay home like a good person....we'll take care of things for you... not to worry...Carry on...you still have many places to post your Memo from Chicago...that is rich!

by GendraX 2008-05-28 11:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Another substanceless reply

ah, but if you use caucuses, you give those states more weight than they should have because the caucuses draw fewer people...

This is the problem with having a system like the one we have and why the popular vote argument is getting so much play.

by slynch 2008-05-27 07:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Another substanceless reply

That is a completely false statement. A caucus state gets no more influence over the nomination than an equivalently sized primary state. I think you meant that a participant in a caucus has more influence than a participant in a primary--which is true but irrelevant, because state parties are free to assign their delegates however they like.

You assume that the number of votes divided by the number of delegates is a proper measure of the validity of a primary or caucus. Clearly that is not the measure that has been used for the last 200 years, because that's how long caucuses have existed.

Primaries are better at measuring breadth of support, caucuses are better at measuring depth of support. They're both important in different ways.

by Brannon 2008-05-28 05:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Another substanceless reply

You're right in your second sentence.  What I'm saying is that if you give caucus states equal delegates to a similarly sized primary state, the primary state participant gets less say, because there are more persons per delegate.  This isn't irrelevant, because although it's true that delegates can vote how they like, they almost always vote in proportion to the primary or caucus proportions.

It really doesn't matter that caucuses have been used for 200 years (actually, I can't find any verification of that time frame).  If they're a poor approach to nominating a candidate, they're a poor approach.  Personally, I haven't decided what I think about them, but I don't think the breadth of support vs. depth of support argument (which is an interesting view) is very strong.  Depth of support has no real implication for how things will turn out in a general election; only breadth matters.

by slynch 2008-05-28 09:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Another substanceless reply

Depth of support does matter for knocking on doors, donating money, phone-banking, and any number of other things that you need a large grass-roots organization for.

To calculate the time-frame, take the current year and subtract the year of the first presidential election in this country. Caucuses went through a change to make them more open in the 1830s, and of course there's lots of different kinds of caucuses--but basically they have existed in more or less the same form for a couple centuries.

It's important to keep in mind that we're talking about two candidates that are almost dead-even in even the flawed metric of 'popular-vote', so the indignation about primary vs. caucus is misplaced.

by Brannon 2008-05-29 06:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Another substanceless reply

I'm not indignant, because I don't have a preferred candidate.  From an objective point of view (which I think I have, given that I'm not a supporter of either candidate), this race is pretty much dead even in the popular vote, as you say.  The fact that Obama has a ~200 delegate lead, however, is pretty telling to me--that's due to the caucuses.  Now, it's true, he's run a smarter campaign by going after caucus states.  But, the results in Texas and Washington, in which he won the caucuses but lost the primaries and yet ended up with more delegates, demonstrate to me that the caucus system does not represent the true will of the people, and states that use them should not get as many delegates as those that use primaries, all else being equal.

Frankly, I think we need an samd-day all-primary approach, and perhaps the number of delegates per state should be dependent on voter turnout and not some other metric.

by slynch 2008-05-29 09:37AM | 0 recs
sanity means that you dont waste peoples time

Just some general points that always apply to hearings. Everyone who is testifying should immediately get to the points they want to make in the interests of allowing everybody's viewpoint to be heard as quickly as possible.

In a hearing environment both speaking on without meaning (wasting precious time) and disturbing the civility - especially making noises when people one might disagree with are speaking) is extremely rude. Its also straight out of the oft-mentioned GOP playbook. I don't know how they structure the agenda but its good to have a set structure with each person speaking having a set amount of time (and knowing in advance how long that time is going to be.)

Making sure there is a civil and businesslike environment in which people get to their points quickly will ensure that everybody's viewpoint gets heard. Maybe that is too much to ask of such a contentious topic but its important.

Visual aids (charts) are often very useful in making points, and perhaps people bringing anything like that should also make printed copies to give people who ask..

Will the hearing be available live in streaming video anywhere, or on CSPAN?

by architek 2008-05-27 03:02PM | 0 recs
Re: sanity means that you dont waste peoples time
I gave you some mojo for this.
However it also puts you in a bind.
Now that you have demonstrated you are capable
of intelligent linear writing I will expect more from you than many of your past comments indicate..
(P.S. your tag line does not detract from your comment)
by nogo postal 2008-05-27 03:11PM | 0 recs
Re: sanity means that you dont waste peoples time

C-SPAN will be carrying it, yes.

by ipsos 2008-05-27 07:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Another substanceless reply

The popular vote matters only to Clinton supporters, and should matter to nobody at all. It utterly ignores four states that did not release vote totals, and gives Puerto Rico (zero electoral votes, excellent voter turnout) as much weight as four or five average states.

by jere7my 2008-05-27 04:35PM | 0 recs
mojo for saying something nice

about Obama!

I'm applauding his good sense here.

If you're looking for endearing qualities to begin the process of warming up to Obama, I think you've hit on a huge one ... GOOD SENSE!

by obsessed 2008-05-27 03:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Nonsense

yeah yeah, what JJE said.

Mucho mojo for an excellent comment. Seriously.

by Iago 2008-05-27 01:09PM | 0 recs
T.R.'ed for casting false accusations...

...and attacking the integrity of another commenter. Totally out of bounds according to blog rules. Specifically, it's this sentence which is clearly problematic:


Nobody who cares about voting rights would want to defraud the voters as you do.

by bobswern 2008-05-27 03:50PM | 0 recs
100 Percent?

Except for Iowa.  Screw them.  

Is this really a Hillary supporter or someone doing satire?  Every comment I've seen out of this person has sounded like something out of The Onion.  

by Sun Dog 2008-05-27 12:51PM | 0 recs
Re: 100 Percent?

So the question you're asking is...
"is this satire?"

Would you describe this as a serious question?

by really not a troll 2008-05-27 12:58PM | 0 recs
Re: 100 Percent?

I don't know.  Will that get me in trouble?

I'm getting from other responses that people take this person to be a real Clinton supporter.  It just seems hilarious because I forget that there are actual people who parrot the talking points.  

From my perspective, it's just so goofy it's difficult to even address.  I saw Hillary's Iowa campaign first hand.  They were going to finish this thing on Feb 5.  Any thought of 100% of the votes was a joke from the perspective of the Clinton people I talked to.  

I just don't understand what it could take for someone who has been following this to say stuff like that now.  It seems like it would be too embarrassing.  

by Sun Dog 2008-05-27 01:20PM | 0 recs
Re: 100 Percent?

Oy, you're new here aren't you ;)

by minnesotaryan 2008-05-27 03:28PM | 0 recs
Alegre "a real Clinton supporter?"

Welcome to mydd, Sun Dog. If you click on the name "Alegre" it will take you to a page with all her diaries (as in, one a day for months). She is either the world's most passionate and tireless Hillary supporter or the world's shrewdest McCain troll. I can't imagine Gramps Simpson getting anyone that worked up unless he gets the chance to start appointing Supreme Court justices and to start more wars and veto more benefits for our soldiers, so I think it's safe to say that Alegre is the real deal. There are about a dozen others like her here, but I think even they would admit that she is without peer in her chosen avocation.

She drives us absolutely nuts with her obscene lapses in logic and grammar and I scream at her through my monitor almost nightly, but I still have to give her grudging respect for her steely determination. If we could get her working as hard against the corporations and war profiteers as she works against Obama, we might really have something.

by obsessed 2008-05-27 04:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Not Quite

How quick you are to judge Democrats with such a broad brush.

Who is to say that there wont be Clinton voters protesting the R&B meeting?

I see this event as an issue for our PARTY not the candidates.

The election is done, let the lawyers or whoever make sure this is concluded by the books, we can set historical precedent and then close this book and MOVE ON !

by CrushTheGOP2008 2008-05-27 12:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Not Quite

there will be no Clinton supporters protesting anything, there will be Democrats who want the votes counted and the delegates seated. I can' imagine any Democrat wanting to keep votes from counting, can you?  This isn't partisan, and by him keeping his supporters away he'll look like he's also being non-partisan.  That's a good thing, a smart move.  This can't be decided by bullies and bullies might make them think, uh oh, bullies, we don't count bullies we count votes.  

by anna shane 2008-05-27 01:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Not Quite

Quit pretending.  This is not about voting rights, it's about helping Hillary.  If it were, you, or Hillary, would have raised this in the fall, when Hillary said flatly that MI and FL would not count.  You would be acknowledging the many individuals in MI and FL who took the party at their word that the contests that were held would not count and stayed home (or voted for Mitt Romney) because of that.  

As I said upthread (or downthread), I'm almost tempted to sign off your silly idea of fair, if only because it WILL NOT CHANGE THE OUTCOME of this race.  I could see Hillary trying to claim her share of uncommitted in her meaningless and unreflective "popular vote" tally though if this were accepted.

I'm sorry, but you are fooling noone as to your motivations except those that already agree with you, and even you and they, I suspect are only half kidding yourselves.

by Pragmatic Left 2008-05-27 01:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Not Quite

you don't know me and you have no cause to 'know' my true motives. Since 2000 we've had a stake in all votes counting, I'd say opposing it is more likely to favor Barack and is new for now. Wanting votes to count is older than the hills, older than me.  Usually it's only pugs who try to keep our votes from counting. That a presidential candidate would take such a stand when it's self-serving isn't attractive. I think this means he's figured that one out, he's not going to oppose it, at least not publicly. and that's a good start.  When he's in favor, will you be too, or will you keep to your principles, whatever they may be?  

by anna shane 2008-05-27 01:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Not Quite

If it were, you, or Hillary, would have raised this in the fall, when Hillary said flatly that MI and FL would not count.  You would be acknowledging the many individuals in MI and FL who took the party at their word that the contests that were held would not count and stayed home (or voted for Mitt Romney) because of that.

Anna, could you maybe respond to the substance of this post?  I have never heard a convincing explanation of why, in light of the facts that

1) MI and FL legislatures made a calculated power ploy, trading the binding votes of their constituents for what they thought would be early influence in a short primary season,

2) Clinton's surrogates had a hand in stripping the delegates,

3) she made her own calculated gamble that winning an early beauty contest was more important than pandering to Iowa, and

4) she never said a word until she found out Obama was for real and she needed the delegates,

anybody should believe that Clinton's position on MI and FL is anything more than pure political expedience.

by Koan 2008-05-27 01:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Not Quite

my point is that all votes should count whoever they benefit. I had the same opinion in 2000 when i wanted a recount and I wanted even a revote if those ballots were what kept us from having a fair winner.  

by anna shane 2008-05-27 01:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Not Quite

Well, I applaud that sentiment, but the analogy to 2000 is misplaced.  All the votes have been counted.  No one ever prevented the votes from being, you know, tabulated.  No one was "disenfranchised" by, you know, being denied the right to vote.

My point is that the decision to strip MI and FL of their delegates to the Democratic convention was a political decision made by the bipartisan legislatures of those states, who fully knew the consequences of their actions.  They were aided and abetted by senior figures in the Clinton campaign, who believed that non-binding elections in those states on Feb. 5 would be more useful to her than binding elections on a later date.  They were all wrong.  To the extent that the voters of MI and FL have been screwed, they were screwed by their own legislatures.  Their only remedy is to vote them out of office, not to be re-screwed by giving those fundamentally flawed due to ballot/turnout elections binding power after the fact.

Sorry for all the boldface but I've had a hard time getting any Clinton supporter to respond to these arguments on the merits.  Please debate them with me!

by Koan 2008-05-27 01:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Not Quite

Koan, this will seem alittle off topic but maybe not. It goes to the political aspect of the Florida primary.

Do you know what the other thing was on the ballot? The property tax issue? The issue folks wouldn't be voting for if they didn't show up to vote?
It was about property taxes. It raised Homestead Exemption/decreased property taxes without taking money for education. From what I'm reading it would put a cap on property taxes? It might affect healthcare/medicaid funding?

Anyone have a copy of what was voted on?

by 12 dogs and a blog 2008-05-27 03:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Not Quite

Yeah, it was actually an amendment to the Florida Constitution.

Here are the details:

http://www.ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.ph p?title=Florida_Amendment_One_(2008)

by Koan 2008-05-27 05:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Not Quite

I think I commented to this but can't find it yet. Till I do, thanks for the link. Would you try again and see if it works for you? Thanks.

Have been finding more and more info on Florida's amendment one just haven't found the exact wording. Thanks again.
Hope you had a good weekend.

by 12 dogs and a blog 2008-05-28 12:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Not Quite

the point was the the real votes didn't count because they were disqualified or the machines didn't work, or they were lost, or there weren't enough ballots, or people were turned away, the countless ways that voters can get sent home without having had a say in the process. It's not as particular as all that.

Hillary wanted a re-vote in both states, and that puts her on the high road already. I was in favor of a revote so both could campaign there and we'd be stronger there in the GE. The proposal was mail in, which is something that's been near and dear to Barack's heart, because it's good for African Americans, and old people, and people with health problems, it's a much better way to get more people voting.  

It's just a principle with me and I've always been for that one, it's pretty much a no-brainer, the pugs want to keep us from voting because there are more of us, and we want all of everybody to vote, no matter the outcome.  

by anna shane 2008-05-27 03:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Not Quite

Furthermore, could you respond to this specific point from the original post?

You would be acknowledging the many individuals in MI and FL who took the party at their word that the contests that were held would not count and stayed home (or voted for Mitt Romney) because of that.

by Koan 2008-05-27 01:51PM | 0 recs
Don't hold your breath

I've seem Clinton campaign quotes brought up numerous times; Hillary saying with her own mouth that the votes wouldn't count, her campaign staff saying repeatedly that it was a race to 2025 delegates... I've never seen any Clinton supporter here explain to me how they square those earlier positions with the current 180 degree difference.

This will all be over with soon.  The delegations will be seated, but in reduced strength so some semblance of sanction is still in place for jumping the schedule.  We will have a nominee.  The party will unify.  We will go on to kick McCain's but in November.

No worries.

by protothad 2008-05-27 02:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Not Quite

I'll respond to your demand.  When you want to discuss something with someone, you don't tell them they need to respond to this or that, and must engage on what you want to engage on. It's like telling someone, let me finish, you and I don't have that kind of relationship, and no one is required to let anyone finish. I can state an opinion and go back to my life and not look again for days, and then I might not be interested in that particular point and so may chose to ignore it.  Demanding responses is pushy.  Plus, you'll live in perpetual frustration if you think everybody you put your demand to owes you answers, cause there will always be times when no one will care enough to respond to your point.  

by anna shane 2008-05-27 03:43PM | 0 recs
but his asking and your non-response
makes it clear to third parties that you have no answer. So it's good for him to ask, even though you wish he wouldn't.
by JJE 2008-05-27 04:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Not Quite

Hey Anna, thanks for (sort of) responding.  I understand why you want the MI and FL delegates seated.  What I'm looking for is any kind of counter to the arguments that the Practical guy above made: that the Clinton campaign's role in stripping the delegates for political gain undermines their efforts to reinstate them now that the political winds have changed.

I don't mean to be pushy, and I believe if you look at my posts, I never "demanded" anything.  I asked.  Nicely!  With phrases like "could you" and "please."  I may be hopelessly naive, but I feel like respectfully asking someone you're debating to clarify their point, or explain their argument, is part of reasonable discourse.

Thanks for the debate.  I remain unconvinced that there's any reason to break the rules and seat the MI and FL delegates as is.  Process matters.  The voters in MI and FL need to take out their frustrations on the legislators who cynically traded their votes for fleeting prestige.

by Koan 2008-05-27 05:25PM | 0 recs
so if I take a poll in my neighborhood
should that get some delegates? After all, all votes should count, right?
by JJE 2008-05-27 02:50PM | 0 recs
Re: so if I take a poll in my neighborhood

Yes!  I already held a primary in my apartment.  All 50 delegates are to be awarded to Obama on the strength of a 2-0 popular vote.  I'll be protesting on May 31st to get my and my roommate's voices heard!

by minnesotaryan 2008-05-27 03:32PM | 0 recs
See you in Denver!
My apartment building is also overwhelmingly Obama. I demand all 300 of us be seated.
by JJE 2008-05-27 04:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Not Quite

How did you feel in 2000 when the Michigan votes didn't get counted or seated because the Michigan leadership did the same thing?  Did you complain then, or was it okay, because Gore won the nomination anyway?

by Tommy Flanagan 2008-05-27 03:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Not Quite

Do you at least acknowledge that Hillary also took such a stand when it was self-serving and (since she's also a presidential candidate) then she deserves the labels of 'unattractive' and anti-Democracy, etc., etc.

Now clearly she saw the light at some point--do you have any idea why that might be?

by Brannon 2008-05-27 02:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Not Quite

I'm almost tempted to sign off your silly idea of fair, if only because it WILL NOT CHANGE THE OUTCOME of this race.

Another thing: the superdelegates aren't dumb or gullible.  Nothing up to this point has prevented the superdelegates from believing that Obama was "disenfranchising voters", but yet they're still endorsing him and not Clinton.  Similarly, even if the delegations are seated under the Lanny plan, nothing would prevent the superdelegates from seeing it as a farce and continuing to endorse Obama.  

As Clinton has pointed out repeatedly, superdelegates are not bound to pledged delegates.  If one candidate manages to beat the other through means that are patently unfair, I would like to think that the superdelegates would take that into account.  Are there really superdelegates who would say, "Well, last week I considered the Michigan elections invalid, but now I guess I'll use them as a basis for my decision"?  It seems to me that most supers have made up their mind about Michigan and Florida already and whatever happens on the 31st isn't going to change that.

by sneakers563 2008-05-27 02:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Not Quite

exactly, Barack's push to keep them from counting doesn't help him with supers and makes him look cheesy.  

by anna shane 2008-05-27 03:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Not Quite

You're a liar, Barack has not pushed not to have them seated.  The very first one who said no to a revote was CLINTON.

Barack just questioned how it would work for those who voted R or didn't vote at all.  Being a consitutional laywer, he knows if you're going to try to "make whole", you have to do it all the way, not just for one party in the situation.  There are at least ONE MILLION VOTERS who never cast ballots in Michigan because of this.  Why? Because, very possibly, their candidate wasn't on the ballot, and they were told the vote wouldn't count anyway.  

by Tommy Flanagan 2008-05-27 03:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Not Quite

tell yourself that Tommy, the super's know.  

by anna shane 2008-05-27 03:57PM | 0 recs
they sure do
and that's why they're going with Obama.
by JJE 2008-05-27 04:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Not Quite

From March 7:

'Some party officials are suggesting caucuses as an option to get the delegates qualified--but that doesn't pass muster with Clinton. "I would not accept a caucus," she told us. "I think that would be a great disservice to the 2 million people who turned out and voted. I think that they want their votes counted."'

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/camp aign-2008/2008/03/07/clinton-says-no-to- a-caucus-do-over.html

by jere7my 2008-05-27 04:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Not Quite

Even BEFORE that:

Clinton campaign conference notes. 2/16/08

Question from the press? A new caucus in Michigan? Ickes: No because in 2004 only 160,000 people voted in the "firehouse primary". Over 600k have voted already. Fight not good for party or candidate--bitter fight not good--not well served by settling this at the convention. (Note: he said the opposite above) We will compete but see no need for a revote.

Facts are so inconvenient, aren't they?

by Tommy Flanagan 2008-05-27 06:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Not Quite

Except it hasn't hurt him with the superdelegates either.  There hasn't exactly been a flood of angry superdelegates endorsing Clinton as of late.  I think one could assume that pushing the issue isn't exactly helping her in the eyes of most superdelegates either.

I suspect we expect different outcomes, but I agree with you that they should just seat them.  I'd like to see some kind of penalty applied to them, but I really don't care that much.  This has been an issue for weeks if not months.  The superdelegates have made up their minds on this and I don't believe that what happens will make that much of a difference.  Either they'll see it as confirming what they've always believed or they'll see it as an injustice that needs to be rectified.  Just end it already.  

by sneakers563 2008-05-27 04:46PM | 0 recs
I agree with you that it would be right

for Senator Clinton to issue a similar statement to her supporters but sadly I fear that message will never be written.

by notme54 2008-05-27 01:23PM | 0 recs
Re: I agree with you that i

she didn't have to, we knew better.  Supporters from both campaigns will be there asking that those votes get counted and protesting nothing, it's a meeting to decide, not a meeting to protest, we want that meeting to settle things so that they can be seated.  

by anna shane 2008-05-27 01:28PM | 0 recs
I hope that you are right

but fear that you are not.

by notme54 2008-05-27 01:29PM | 0 recs
Re: I hope that you are right

you won't have long to wait.  

by anna shane 2008-05-27 01:35PM | 0 recs
Re: I agree with you that i

ANSWER THE QUESTIONS ABOVE. you are a coward.

by telfishbackagain 2008-05-27 03:29PM | 0 recs
Re: I agree with you that i

wow, that rumor about charm bloggers was wrong, any wonder he doesn't want you protesting in his name?  With charm like that, how can I not care enough to answer whatever question you think you nailed me with.  Ho humm.  guess I must be scared, who knew, thought it was just a bore.  

by anna shane 2008-05-27 03:47PM | 0 recs
YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!

Seriously, Anna, you don't have any answers. You love to shout out whatever fallacious arguments occur to you, but when they get shot down, as they always do, you just get belligerent. I've never once read a coherent rebuttal from you on any point and I've read a LOT of your posts, god knows why.

by obsessed 2008-05-27 04:09PM | 0 recs
Re: YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!

belligerent?  Moi?  Where did that come from.  

by anna shane 2008-05-27 04:43PM | 0 recs
Re: YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!

belligerent?  Moi?  Where did that come from.  

your passive-aggressive refusal to even acknowledge the sincere and polite arguments being presented after reading your statements.

by obsessed 2008-05-27 05:47PM | 0 recs
Re: YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!

I don't think you're belligerent anna shane. Not at all. Course I'm used to women who have strong beliefs and don't have problems saying so with the "courage of their convictions". Plus I've seen first hand how some folks have been less than nice to you. I like to think that if what you said to someone here hurt their feelings you'd give a care.

I don't know of anyone here who hasn't had their moments. The trick is to back it up when you get that your words aren't just a strong arguement but are in fact really personal and hurtful.

Hope you both had a good weekend.
 

by 12 dogs and a blog 2008-05-28 12:50PM | 0 recs
Then I guess

you'll get your 30 seconds of teevee time pounding your fist for just the Hillary votes.

by gchaucer2 2008-05-27 12:52PM | 0 recs
Is this snark?

Seriously.

by notme54 2008-05-27 12:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Not Quite

"Counting the votes" here is like the counting the votes of people who choose the Obama burger versus the Clinton cheeseburger at a local restaurant.

Sure, you can do it, but does is part of the process under the rules? NO.

by politicsmatters 2008-05-27 12:53PM | 0 recs
Edwards & Obama Voters Too!

Because I know you don't just mean for HRC there Alegre.

by steampunkx 2008-05-27 12:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Not Quite

My guess is that the votes will get counted.  That will be good.  Obama's camp knows that that will quiet uproar and that Obama will likely still win.  Straight class from Camp O!

by proseandpromise 2008-05-27 12:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Not Quite

Alegre, you got to come around more often, quite the celebrity.

You got like 7 or 8 independent comments on your single comment, with the lack of material for diaries you should comment more often.

by CrushTheGOP2008 2008-05-27 12:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Not Quite

Democrats - in case you missed this important point - count all the votes.  100 percent of the vote, 100 percent of the time.
except when you tell half of them to stay home, "It's clear, this (primary in Michigan) is not going to count for anything."

by rb608 2008-05-27 01:08PM | 0 recs
You don't give a rats @$$ about voting rights.

I posted a comment last time you made this phony declaration, and predictably, you did not respond, but here is again in case you feel like toning down the hypocritical phony righetous indignation for moment:

If you cared about voting rights, you would have diaried this in the fall.  You would not be creating a situation in which Hillary "fairly" gets 75% of the delegates out of MI.  You would be acknowledging the many individuals in MI and FL who took the party at their word that the contests that were held would not count and stayed home (or voted for Mitt Romney) because of that.  You would not be talking about awarding delegates based on polls.

You can pretend this about enfranchisement, but most of realize this is simply about benefiting Hillary Clinton.  Sadly, I'm almost tempted to sign off your silly idea of fair, if only because it WILL NOT CHANGE THE OUTCOME of this race.  I could see Hillary trying to claim her share of uncommitted in her meaningless and unreflective "popular vote" tally though if this were accepted.

I'm sorry, but you are fooling noone as to your motivations except those that already agree with you, and even you and they, I suspect are only half kidding yourselves.

by Pragmatic Left 2008-05-27 01:18PM | 0 recs
Re: You don't give a rats @$$ about voting rights.
So, since we all know that seating the delegates (by whatever way the Rules committee chooses, and which I'm sure will be fair to both candidates) won't make a difference, why are Obama supporters arguing so hard against it?
Is it worth taking a chance and letting McCain take both these states in the fall? Did you know Kerry only won Michigan by 4 electoral votes?
I'm a Clinton supporter, and I think this is important for the fall, not for the outcome of the primaries (which has already been decided, IMO).
by skohayes 2008-05-27 02:30PM | 0 recs
I think Obama supporters are sick and tired of

this ridiculous talking point that we really want people like Alegre and Anna shane to just admit this is all about Hillary and not any idealism.  

Since everyone knows the math is complete bullshit, anytime anyone actually brings it up should get a vitrual smackdown for being blatantly dishonest.

by KLRinLA 2008-05-27 02:50PM | 0 recs
Re: You don't give a rats @$$ about voting rights.

Here's why:

Because doing so means the rules are meaningless... that we can do whatever we want if the rules don't suit us.  Doing so tells these and other states that next time, the rules don't matter.  Doing so is a dishonest way of "enfranchising" people because it it really only enfranchises those who ingnored what they were told the rules were -- it double disenfranchises individuals who did not vote because they knew (or at least thought) it wouldn't count.

Furthermore, I think it's a stretch to assume that seating them, given the fact that going back on the rules cannot be done any way but cynically now, would in any way suddenly improve our polling in these states...

Kerry won Michigan by 4 electoral votes?  I think you mean percent.  Color me skeptical that seating Michgian's delegates based on a sham election is somehow going to translate into November's votes... but even if it were, it would only be at the expense of saying the rules don't mean anything.  I've had enough of that the last 8 years to last a lifetime.

by Pragmatic Left 2008-05-27 02:52PM | 0 recs
Re: You don't give a rats @$$ about voting rights.

The very rules you keep clinging to are what is bringing the committee to have a meeting.
The rules allow delegates to be seated anyway the DNC decides. Everyone knows that some sort of an agreement will be reached. They've known it all along.
As for what happens in the next primary, I would only hope that the DNC has already figured out that things need to be changed with regard to the primary schedule- they lost complete control over the states and the primary schedule last year, because of Iowa and New Hampshire's antics.
And for my comment on Michigan, you were right, it was percent (still doesn't change my point):

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.

by skohayes 2008-05-27 03:14PM | 0 recs
Re: You don't give a rats @$$ about voting rights.

Here I am clinging.

Here's what will happen: some compromise will be reached, but this will not change the fact that these states broke the rules.  The committee will sustain the punishment on some level because that is the right thing to do.  I would argue that any compromise would be a compromise on what is right, but sometimes politics require balancing that with what is convenient.

The fact is that Michigan and Florida broke the rules, with plenty of warning, and flouted the process.  Say what you will about Iowa and NH, but their elections were held within the framework accredited by the party and agreed upon by the candidates.

Of the problems I raised, the one that noone seems to want to address is that in putting elections which were repeatedly affirmed as not counting (including by Hillary) on the same level of those contests with full campaigning and belief by both voters and those who chose not to that the results would count is simply not an honest or fair way to conduct elections.

Using the previous elections, which voters (and non-voters) were told would not count to award delegates is NOT enfranchisement, plain and simple.

by Pragmatic Left 2008-05-27 06:25PM | 0 recs
Re: You don't give a rats @$$ about voting rights.

The only reason Michigan will even remotely go for McCain is because Jennifer Granholm (a Clinton buddy) has done an abysmal job here and people are tired of her. Republicans AND Democrats.

I will also say, Gore also didn't have his name on the Michigan PRIMARY ballot in 2000, the votes weren't counted at all, but nobody held that against him.

by Tommy Flanagan 2008-05-27 06:42PM | 0 recs
Re: You don't give a rats @$$ about voting rights.

three reasons:

1. not punishing MI & FL guarantees that many states will pull this crap again in 4 years.

2. they were not fair elections and it sets a bad precedent for future elections and sets a bad example for other nations trying to emulate our democracy. Any Republican in the future or any dictator in a third world country could show it as evidence that an election could still be considered legitimate even if (a) 2 out of the top 3 candidates weren't on the ballot,  or (b) where people were told it wouldn't count, or (c) where all the candidates weren't able to campaign

3. seating the delegations artificially narrows the delegate gap between Obama and Hillary; which would be used by some to claim a reduced 'mandate' as the nominee. Worse, it would inevitably lead to some ridiculous armchair analysis on how the 'popular vote' of the two states should be apportioned which would continue to fuel some of Hillary's more ardent supporters and further polarize the Democratic party.

by Brannon 2008-05-27 03:10PM | 0 recs
Re: You don't give a rats @$$ about voting rights.

1) Michigan has pulled this before. It's basically a protest against the same states holding the first primaries election after election. We had quite a few discussions about this over at DKos last year and I think most people agreed that we need to let all states have a chance at being in the first 4 states that  hold primaries, either regionally or some other method.

2. Why were they not "fair"? Were people prevented from voting? Weren't names removed from the ballot in Michigan voluntarily? Didn't the Obama campaign encourage his supporters to vote "uncommitted"?
What about Florida? What was the matter there? All the names were on the ballot, no one was allowed to campaign, so they were all on even footing. Obama and CLinton had both been fundraising in Florida since early 2007, so it's not like they were completely unknown.
As for setting a bad example, thanks to GWB, this country's elections have been a bad example for the last 8 years, the DNC couldn't do worse than the Republicans, could they?
All this drama about the elections being unfair is silly, because the rules allow for the delegates to be seated, after the RBC holds a meeting. It's only a matter of how many there will be.

3. How does it "artificially" narrow the gap? If the delegates are seated (and it will be fair to both candidates, I'm sure), then it narrows the gap. Period. All the Obama supporters will back me up when I say that Obama will still be leading in delegates at the end of the meeting.
But until the superdelegates make up their minds and choose our nominee, Hillary's supporters and Obama's supporters will continue to feud.
If people are still carrying on after that, then we should deal with it or let the site adminstrators deal with it.

by skohayes 2008-05-27 04:09PM | 0 recs
Re: You don't give a rats @$$ about voting rights.


1. You're right it isn't fair--but the solution isn't a free-for-all, which is exactly what you're going to get if there's no punishment.

2. (a) people were told their votes wouldn't count so many didn't vote or voted in the Republican primary, (b) names were removed from the ballot by 2 of the top 3 candidates because all the candidates pledged not to participate in the election and they all agreed the election wouldn't count, (c) yes many of his supporters voted uncommitted, but many didn't as clearly indicated by exit polls, (d) a fair election requires open campaigning--that's a basic requirement for the international definition of a fair election--put another way, if I was running against Britney Spears in Florida and neither of us was allowed to campaign, who would win?

3. If Obama seats delegates that weren't won fairly then he artificially closes the gap. That's all I meant--clearly you think those delegates will be awarded fairly, but I don't think they can be short of a new primary in FL & MI.

by Brannon 2008-05-27 04:18PM | 0 recs
Re: You don't give a rats @$$ about voting rights.

Exactly.  Awarding delegates to contests in which voters and non-voters were told there were no delegates to be awarded is not fair, in any honest manner.

by Pragmatic Left 2008-05-27 06:27PM | 0 recs
There are some [clearing throat]

on this site who really do not give a damn about votes being counted or people being disenfranchised.  They just want votes counted in a way that will benefit their candidate.  Integrity, honesty and reason be damned!

by rf7777 2008-05-27 01:24PM | 0 recs
Re: There are some [clearing throat]

I've been all in favor of a new primary or caucus in MI and FL, but Hillary refused a caucus and the states refused a new primary. Since then, I've said 'Screw 'em.' Don't seat Michigan, cede Florida to Cuba.

by Geiiga 2008-05-27 05:29PM | 0 recs
if only al gore had had that position in 2000...

instead of his actual position of recounting the votes in four florida counties.  but you weren't going for historical accuracy, were you?  history is not exactly a kind subject for hillary and her supporters...

by bored now 2008-05-27 01:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Not Quite

You're right... let's count the votes according to the Alegre Rule.

by mistersite 2008-05-27 01:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Not Quite
I live in Florida, I want my vote counted. When I read the first few paragraphs of this diary I almost gagged.
by mztower 2008-05-27 01:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Not Quite

MZ tower.

Could you tell me what other items were on your ballot?

What can you tell me about Amendment One?

by 12 dogs and a blog 2008-05-27 03:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Not Quite

....silence....

by Tommy Flanagan 2008-05-27 06:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Not Quite

Hello Tommy Flanagan!

It's cool. Got my answer. Thanks.

Hope you had a good weekend.

by 12 dogs and a blog 2008-05-28 12:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Not Quite
Yes. amendment one has to do with raising the homestead exemption in our state. Dont get all huffy when someone doesnt answer you right back, some of us actually have lives and families that we care for.
by mztower 2008-05-27 07:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Not Quite

LOL Huffy? I'm so mellow that if you put me in a tshirt someone would try to put me on a stick and roast me. Yuk yuk.

by 12 dogs and a blog 2008-05-28 12:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Not Quite

Meebee the "huffy" part of your response is to someone else. Hope ya' had a great weekend. Like you said some of us have a life off the blogs. LOL.

by 12 dogs and a blog 2008-05-28 12:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Not Quite

That would be great, if there were 100 percent of the votes available.  But, some of us were suppressed from voting when one candidate said it was clear the votes wouldn't count.

by Tommy Flanagan 2008-05-27 01:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Not Quite

Then you should very concerned that the primary was deemed unconstitutional by a Michigan court, right? Surely you don't believe an unconstitutional primary should be counted?

by terra 2008-05-27 01:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Not Quite

This made me curious (hadn't heard it before) and I did a search. This is about the MI Supreme Court, which overturned the decision by the lower court:

In its 4-3 decision Wednesday, the Michigan Supreme Court overturned lower court rulings that said the law setting up the primary was unconstitutional because it would let the state political parties keep track of voters' names and whether they took Democratic or GOP primary ballots but withhold that information from the public.

Justices Clifford Taylor, Maura Corrigan, Robert Young Jr. and Stephen Markman argued in the majority opinion that the political parties serve a public purpose by enlightening the public and encouraging an informed decision-making process, and that giving them sole access to the voter information does not violate the state constitution.

They sent the case back to Ingham County Circuit Court and ordered it dismissed.

Justices Michael Cavanagh, Marilyn Kelly and Elizabeth Weaver dissented, writing that the majority opinion risks causing the distinction between public and private purposes to lose all meaning and inviting "bad consequences for Michigan citizens in the future."

http://www.wsbt.com/news/election/2008/1 1713311.html

The bolded part in that quote is what they were ruling unconstitutional- the voting lists being kept by the parties.

Here's a comment from the "2008 Democratic Convention Watch" blog:

The court declared unconstitutional only the section of the law dealing with the party preference of the voters and specifically enjoined the distribution of the lists to the party chairs. Since the lists already exist, but were unlawfully collected, it is not clear what should happen to them now.

The court also noted that the act amending the Michigan statute contains a nonseverability clause stating if any portion is found invalid the whole amending act is "without effect". The court did not address this and further action would be required in the Michigan courts, but it would seem to restore the Michigan primary to its original date.

The court also noted in passing that the Michigan statute was inconsistent with the Democratic Delegation selection rules which require that "Democratic voters shall be those persons who publicly declare their Party
preference and have that preference publicly recorded." The statute required that declaration of party preference remain confidential.

http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/03/ judge-rules-michigans-primary-law.html

by skohayes 2008-05-27 02:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Not Quite

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

HRC on MI, 3/20/08

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

Noted without comment.

by bosdcla14 2008-05-27 01:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Not Quite

And, of course, there will be no answer to this, but, hey, for the hundredth time:

  1. are not those who stayed home because they thought the election wouldn't count 'disenfranchised' by an acceptance of those votes "as-is"?
  2. How can you reconcile Hillary's position on these primaries before Iowa and her position post-Iowa?

Alegre?  Anyone?  Please.

by mikeinsf 2008-05-27 02:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Not Quite

I've asked these same two questions, in various forms, of several Clinton supporters.  See my exchange with anna shane upthread.  I have never received a substantive answer.

And this of course speaks volumes.

by Koan 2008-05-27 05:53PM | 0 recs
You don't care about my voting rights.

And you don't care about my voice.  If you did, you would have been pushing this back in December or January before the voting happened.  You only care about getting the result you want.

Quit with the sanctimony.  I find those like you who would make me a ping pong in their political game offensive.

by you like it 2008-05-27 02:50PM | 0 recs
But you don't want to count 100%

of the vote.

by heresjohnny 2008-05-27 02:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Not Quite

It's sort of silly to count votes when no one campaigned and everyone knew that the votes didn't count.  My friends in MI and FL either crossed over and voted in the Republican primary or stayed home.

Aren't we disenfranchising them if we count all of those vote?

We all knew the rules.  MI and FL broke them.  

Can we please refocus energies on the man who wants to overturn Roe v. Wade??

by GingertheDem 2008-05-27 03:53PM | 0 recs
Yes, yes...

wonderful idea.

Let's completely destroy the DNC's ability to administer a national primary process.

We might as well start slating embryos for the Presidency because it'll turn into a never-ending game of primary moves.

We'll have sanctioned contests, unsanctioned contests, half-sanctioned contests... multiple contests in individual states.

It'll be just wonderful.

I wish Clinton folks would at least be honest about this process... if there truly any real desire to reform the nominating process (and while I support the caucus process, I absolutely agree with ending the NH/IA monopoly) - this is NOT the way to do it.

The ONLY way to reform the process is nationally, through the DNC.  

Let the states resolve handle it individually -- and you'll never... NEVER... see an end to the NH/IA monopoly on the early contests.

by zonk 2008-05-27 04:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Yes, yes...
The ONLY way to reform the process is nationally, through the DNC. Let the states resolve handle it individually -- and you'll never... NEVER... see an end to the NH/IA monopoly on the early contests.
I gave you mojo for those two thoughts alone. You and I disagree on caucuses, I just dont think they are a fair representative of the voters, and does disenfranchise so many that are unable to show up at a certain block of a few hours for various reasons, including illness, out of the country, etc.
by mztower 2008-05-27 08:02PM | 0 recs
On caucuses

Actually - my preference would be to see the "Texas two step" go nationwide.

I think it's the perfect answer... maybe reconfigure the allocation to 3/4 primary to 1/4 caucus - but in a partisan nominating contest, I think the voices of the activist class in the party should have a louder voice.

Come summer and fall - it's going to be that activist class that does the grassroots heavy lifting.  We're going to be the ones knocking on doors, phonebanking, setting registration drives, etc.   For many of us - this IS our hobby.   I did it after my preferred candidate in 2004 was defeated.  I'd have done it again in 2008 had my preferred candidate not won.

by zonk 2008-05-28 04:42AM | 0 recs
My family is in Ohio

If Hillary had her way, their votes would never have counted. The election was supposed to be over on 2/5. What gives?

by highgrade 2008-05-27 04:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Not Quite

Sheer utter nonesense. Keep trying, though.

by Rationalisto 2008-05-27 04:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Not Quite

Yep it's about voter rights.. spot on Alegre.

Lets see shall we just award all the delegates of MI and FL to Clinton to protect their sacred rights which have been violated?

No better yet, lets have the Rules and Bylaws comittee declare Clinton the winner outright since she is the better candidate.

Hey we could award the delegates and have the metric switched at the last minute and have it be the popular vote in the states that matter (that way we can avoid counting those stupid caucuses)..

yep those all sound perfectly fair and reasonable to me, I am sure you would agree, wouldn't you Alegre.

by Why Not 2008-05-27 05:05PM | 0 recs
Re: When the facts and law are on your side

hmmm, I wonder how you felt with the 2000 elections?

by colebiancardi 2008-05-27 01:03PM | 0 recs
Re: When the facts and law are on your side
In 2000 the rules were not respected. Don't make the same mistake again!
by french imp 2008-05-27 01:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama 08: Do Not Protest

Thanks for posting this. The Obama campaign's policy of not targeting superdelegates has gone over much better than the nasty e-mails some have been sending to plead Clinton's case.  If I were on that committee and one side sent me lots of nasty notes, I would not be inclined to support them, unless their argument was incredibly strong (and it's not).

by politicsmatters 2008-05-27 12:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama 08: Do Not Protest

And the alternate event - registering voters - is brilliant. It's not only important in and of itself but it highlights the Obama's strength in its ground game.

by politicsmatters 2008-05-27 12:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama 08

Thanks for the post - rec'd.  

Obama is CLASS personified.  Time and time again.

by JulieinVT 2008-05-27 12:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama 08

smart, he does not want his over the top name calling ranters calling foul on national television.  He doesn't want them at the convention either.  I hope this also means he doesn't plan to oppose seating the delegates, he'll still be ahead in pledged delegates and she'd have the same popular vote argument to the supers whether or not they're counted in the official tally.  For the first time in some times I'm seeing some smarts from the Barack campaign.  

by the way, if you want to see what the fallout is from his campaign sending KO's rant to reporters, check this out:  

http://tominpaine.blogspot.com/2008/05/r fk-assassination-character.html

by anna shane 2008-05-27 12:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama 08

I've never even heard of that blog. So if this is the "fallout," all I can say is - huh?

by politicsmatters 2008-05-27 12:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama 08

so?  

by anna shane 2008-05-27 01:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama 08

That was my thought.  People inside the bubble of hate have no idea how few are outraged.

by map 2008-05-27 01:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama 08

hey, I thought we were talking, how am I in a bubble of hate now?  You know better than that.  

by anna shane 2008-05-27 01:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama 08

I meant the blogger for the most part.  You obviously aren't totally in the bubble, and I have hope that you'll warm to Obama at some point :)

by map 2008-05-27 01:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama 08

Damn, that article was "Weak Sauce"

Absolutely ZERO referrences, a 5th grader smear against an American hero.

Wow, I didn't know there were still members standing by that BS statement she made last Friday [scratches head]

by CrushTheGOP2008 2008-05-27 01:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama 08

I like the phrase "bubble of hate." I think that's the starting point for a "shame spiral."

:)

by Rationalisto 2008-05-27 04:59PM | 0 recs
Pass the smelling salts!

Crazed pro-Hillary idiot is outraged by Obama campaign!  OMG the fallout!

I am SHOCKED, SHOCKED, to find politics being played in a political campaign.

by JJE 2008-05-27 01:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Pass the smelling salts!

Anna, I think JJE was talking about the blogger you linked, not you.  Might consider removing the zero.

by map 2008-05-27 01:15PM | 0 recs
Yes, map is right

the idiot in question is Marc Rubin, not Anna Shane.

by JJE 2008-05-27 01:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama 08

If you google long enough, you'll find blogs of people who still believe the earth is flat and that the holocaust was staged....

by Tommy Flanagan 2008-05-27 01:55PM | 0 recs
No way -- not at 100%

There has to be a penalty for FL and MI.

Strip the FL/MI supers and seat the pledged delegates fully.  Seat half of them.  Seat them at 1/2 vote each... whatever.

It's not an Obama thing - it's a party thing.  

There is absolutely, positively NO WAY the DNC can seat FL and MI fully.  NO WAY.

It creates nothing but a big mess - and we'll NEVER end the NH/IA monopoly (something I very much want to do).  

If there's no penalty for FL and MI -- the floodgates will open.... and NH and IA will just always skip ahead of everyone else.

We'll see our first contest 18 months before the GE.

by zonk 2008-05-27 04:28PM | 0 recs
Re: No way -- not at 100%
Why should Florida and Michigan be the only two states punished?
under Rule 20.C.1.a., Florida, Iowa, Michigan, New Hampshire, and South Carolina would have all lost their super delegates and had their pledged delegates reduced by half since they all violated Rule 11.A. However, Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina weren't punished fairly. In fact, they weren't punished at all. And what about Florida & Michigan? Well, we all know what happened to them.
by mztower 2008-05-27 08:13PM | 0 recs
Re: No way -- not at 100%

The DNC's calendar called for IA, NH, SC, and NV to be the first four contests.

The spirit of the bylaws were intended to protect that calendar setup.

I have no problem with the DNC granting dispensation in that regard.

The issue is ensuring that the national DNC controls the nominating process.

by zonk 2008-05-28 04:53AM | 0 recs
CLASS strikes again!

by rf7777 2008-05-27 12:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama 08

Thanks for the diary.  Again, I am impressed with Obama's ability to keep above the fray, and direct his campaign's energies to GOTV.  

Our candidates lead by example, and every day I see evidence that illustrates to me that I've made the right choice.

by haystax calhoun 2008-05-27 12:59PM | 0 recs
Hillary should join that call.

It would be nice if some of the Hillary protesters decided to put down their signs and join the Obama supporters in registering new voters. Seems to me that would be a much better use of their time.

by BlueGAinDC 2008-05-27 01:02PM | 0 recs
Re:

Classy.  I love it.  The Obama campaign knows that table-pounding and slogan-shouting do not win arguments; some Clinton supporters seem not to have absorbed this lesson.  Witness how the constant invective and threats of defection from some Clinton supporters aimed at superdelegates have driven them into his camp, not hers.

by Koan 2008-05-27 01:17PM | 0 recs
I just got this image of a scene from Recount...

With Obama asking for no protests, I wonder if the RBC meeting is going to look like that scene from Recount with the Republicans harassing the counting of the votes in Miami-Dade.  I'm not saying they will act like the vicious GOP in Florida in 2000; I'm just saying that given my conversations here I wouldn't be suprised if there were some pretty angry protests.

by nklein 2008-05-27 01:26PM | 0 recs
Could be...

and the committee members will no doubt relive THEIR horror of the Florida debacle too.  The Recount movie was good - but kinda depressing, eh?  Reliving the pain....

by JulieinVT 2008-05-27 01:41PM | 0 recs
Yeah, that's exactly how I felt...

and I was just as pissed at the SCOTUS as I was in December of 2000.  It was like I was hearing it again for the first time.  What got me again this time was the fact that Bush v. Gore decision is not a precedent, b/c according to the Court it only applies to that case.

by nklein 2008-05-27 01:52PM | 0 recs
All statements from Obama's people are controlled?

The Obama Campaign has maintained a remarkable amount of message control through-out their campaign, a trait that has earned them a lot of respect from media and pols alike for their ability to stay on message.  This also has the advantage of preventing wild-card flaks (Geraldine, we're all looking at you) from embarassing the campaign, giving them more control over the money by funnelling funds away from the 527's, and most importantly, allowing them to set the tone.  You know, Obama's tone.

In line with their belief in message control, in this last leg of a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad campaign....

So, all statements from Obama's people are controlled, huh?

Ok, how about this one:

Shortly after Clinton's remarks to a Sioux Falls, S.D., newspaper were reported last Friday, Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton fired off a press release: "Sen. Clinton's statement before the Argus Leader editorial board was unfortunate and has no place in this campaign."

Clinton communications chief, Howard Wolfson, appearing on CBS' "Face the Nation," said Burton's missive was "unfortunate and unnecessary and, in my opinion, inflammatory."

Neither Burton nor Obama's top strategist, David Axelrod, would respond to McAuliffe's complaint Sunday.

"It was an unfortunate statement, as we said, as she's acknowledged. Let's move forward," Axelrod said on ABC's "This Week."

So, was Burton's lie about what Hillary said, and attempts to use his lie to inflame the passions of voters, approved by Obama and/or Axelrod, or not?

And was Axelrod's lie that a perfectly legitimate statement was an "unfortunate statement", and HIS attempts to use his lie to sway the passions of voters, approved by Obama?

How about this one:

"We f*** up in Ohio," she admitted. "In Ohio, they are obsessed and Hillary is going to town on it, because she knows Ohio's the only place they can win.

"She is a monster, too - that is off the record - she is stooping to anything," Ms Power said, hastily trying to withdraw her remark.

Ms Power said of the Clinton campaign: "Here, it looks like desperation. I hope it looks like desperation there, too.

"You just look at her and think, 'Ergh'. But if you are poor and she is telling you some story about how Obama is going to take your job away, maybe it will be more effective. The amount of deceit she has put forward is really unattractive."

Was that approved by Barack Obama, himself?  Or was it a "gaffe"?  

How about this one:

"For the first time in my adult lifetime I am really proud of my country. And not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change." --Michelle Obama

How about this one:

"It sounds more like McCarthy. ... I was going to college when Joe McCarthy was accusing good Americans of being traitors, so I've had enough of it." --Merrill "Tony" McPeak, a former chief of staff of the Air Force and a co-chair of Obama's presidential campaign, on Bill Clinton seemingly questioning Obama's patriotism

Of course, I'm sure you'll agree that Barack Obama personally signed off on this one:

"This is a stain on his legacy, much worse, much deeper, than the one on Monica's blue dress." --Obama adviser Gordon Fischer, on Bill Clinton's attacks on Obama

There's plenty more, but I'll leave it at the last one, since it was so damn classy of Obama to, in your words, personally sign off on.  

by PJ Jefferson 2008-05-27 01:44PM | 0 recs
Hey PJ...Why do keep TRing me for no reason? n/t

by nklein 2008-05-27 01:54PM | 0 recs
Did I? Probably a mistake. Let me check. nt

by PJ Jefferson 2008-05-27 02:08PM | 0 recs
Can you point me to the comment? n/t

by PJ Jefferson 2008-05-27 02:10PM | 0 recs
Yes.

They are comments 34 and either 33 or 35 on this page.  They are the only TR'd comments.

by nklein 2008-05-27 02:18PM | 0 recs
It took me a minute b/c the comment numbers have

changed, but I checked it out, and no, I will not retract the TR.  I will explain it, though.  You were engaging, either willfully or negligently, in ugly, shamefull propaganda regarding what Hillary Clinton said.  If you were to so recklessly distort her words for cheap political gain for your favorite candidate again, I'd TR it again.

I hope you at least appreciate that I took the time to review the TR's, and was willing to take them back if it was not warranted.

by PJ Jefferson 2008-05-27 03:47PM | 0 recs
I will mojo you for taking the effort...

but you absolutely wrong.  I'm not engaging in any propaganda, but in one of those posts I was asking a question and in another I was giving my impression of those remarks.  Neither of those actions are shameful, ugly or propaganda.  You may agree me and you may think my question or statement paints your candidate unfairly, but I cannot tell you how many times I have read your posts and thought the same of them.  I did not TR and I do not think my comments warrant it.  

You have painted my candidate unfairly and the remarks you have made about him have seemed to me talking points, but that is not against the rules.
And thus I did not TR you.  The rules state you can TR someone for attacking another user, attacking viciously a Democratic candidate or spamming, etc.  I did none of those things in those posts.  Please correct it.

by nklein 2008-05-27 04:15PM | 0 recs
You viciously attacked a Democratic candidate

with an ugly smear that has absolutely no basis in reality, whatsoever.

Absolutely no basis in reality, whatsoever.

Can we at least establish that she was talking about the fact that nominations have spilled into June before, and not assasination?  That she was not saying that if she's lucky, Obama will be shot in the face?  Can we at least establish that?  

If not, there's no reason to go further.

by PJ Jefferson 2008-05-27 04:20PM | 0 recs
I wasn't even commenting on her statement per se

I was just reminding the person I was responding to that the "historical event" to which she (the blogger, not Hillary) referred was an assaination.  There was no cause in TRing, which is why you were the only person to do it.

To answer your questions:

Question #1- Yes.  She was talking about the fact that primary campaigns went into June in the past.  But first, she was wrong on the history due to the fact that the big race that everyone was waiting for in 1992 and 1968 was California primary.  This time we are waiting for PR, SD and MT.  None of which can alone or in combination change the outcome of this race.

But she did mention the assaination and not for the first time.  My opinion (and you can take it for what it's worth) is that this was a conscious effort to say anything can happen and thus I have every right to stay in the race.  I admit fully that this could have just been an accident, but I don't think so.  I'm not saying anything vicious about her, but I am saying that she is reaching for less and less credible rationales for remaining in the race.  I am also saying that  she touched a very sensitive nerve, although I believe unintentially.

Question #2- She was most certainly not saying that.  I don't think she wishes any harm on Barack Obama, excpet for the harm that would come from not winning the nomination.  She is a good person and I would never assume she wishes evil on others.  But again she did mention assaination and not for the first time.  Assaination of Obama has been the fear of many and I've heard in RL people mention it at least 50 times.  I would hope that you recognize that this touched a nerve and you might think people's comments on Hillary's remarks were unfair, but at least mine were not vicious.  I did not say that she was calling for Obama's assaination.  All I said was that Hillary's remarks referred to an assaination and that many feared Obama's assaination.  I should not be punished for that.

by nklein 2008-05-27 05:18PM | 0 recs
Nice, you should blog!

If you're going to do that much cutting and pasting into a diary.

Yes, according to most sources who aren't in the Clinton campaign, he has run a tight, above-boards, and eminently positive campaign.

I could fill a financial quarter's worth of diaries about what HRC and her campaign have said that is negative, divisive, and just generally on it's face false.  And I have.  Check out my diaries over at Kos.  

That should rebut pretty much your whole day's posts here.

by steampunkx 2008-05-27 02:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama 08: Do Not Protest
Ya can't have a tug-of-war if one side does not pick up the rope. I hope that Clinton supporters forgo any outside rally also...
If not..and it looks like a scene from "Recount"..
it will not shine well...on them..
by nogo postal 2008-05-27 01:44PM | 0 recs
This is smart politics.

- He knows that harassment by Clinton supporters of the committee members is not likely to put them in the mood to vote in their favor.

  • A noisy demonstration by Clinton supporters will give superdelegates a taste of summer if they don't end this after June 3.
  • This avoids a potentially nasty confrontation between Clinton and Obama supporters which would be all over the media.

Just smart politics.

by Travis Stark 2008-05-27 01:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama 08: Do Not Protest May 31st DNC R&B

My first thought on reading the diary's headline was:  "Cool!  I bet the Republicans don't have an R&B committee!  They wouldn't know good music if it hit them in the face."

They probably have an elevator music committee or something lame like that.

Got nothing.

by Captain Bathrobe 2008-05-27 01:58PM | 0 recs
LOL

Thanks, I needed that! :D

by skohayes 2008-05-27 02:54PM | 0 recs
GOP Equivalent to the R&B Committee

Isn't the Republican equivalent the Lawrence Welk show?

by mistersite 2008-05-27 03:23PM | 0 recs
Re: GOP Equivalent to the R&B Committee

Well, Lawrence Welk actually had real people playing real instruments.  Elevator Muzak, and the other hand, is utterly without heart or soul, designed to sedate people while they buy more stuff.  

So...yeah.  Definitely Republican.

by Captain Bathrobe 2008-05-27 04:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama 08: Do Not Protest May 31st

try posting this at talkleft ....

by 2liberal 2008-05-27 02:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama 08: Do Not Protest May 31st

Moot point; I'm trying to reach Obama supporters.

by steampunkx 2008-05-27 02:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama 08: Do Not Protest May 31st DNC

How long before a Clintonite bashes Obama for "pretending" to maintain decorum while instructing Axelrod to unleash chaos and discord?

I honestly thought it would be said by now.

by Cochrane 2008-05-27 02:42PM | 0 recs
Koan your question
to Anna upthread has not been answered or recognized at all.
until that important question by you has been answered with some shred of rationale, her arguments have no credibility at all.
by cdnminer 2008-05-27 03:12PM | 0 recs
DON'T SHOW UP - MSM WILL JUMP ON IT!!!

All the MSM will be there trying to instigate fights between the Obama and Clinton supporters. Fox News will absolutely love to see lots of fighting and noise. I think that no one but those with tickets should go to the event. I know this call will not be heeded but I am trying to make a point. The point being that if anything remotely negative happens on Saturday, all Democrats lose.

I even expect Republican trolls to show up in person pretending to be Obama and Clinton supporters to make us look bad.

We should unite instead of fight and trust the committee to do what's right and equitable for all involved.

by comingawakening 2008-05-27 04:01PM | 0 recs
Makes sense to me

Why protest counting the votes? It would make Obama look bad. Not to mention a passle of aggressive protesters trying to stop the count because they supported Obama would really make it look desperate.

Also, any protesters may or may not be Clinton supporters. From what I have read in other places, it's mostly people PO'd about not having their votes counted, just like in 2000, that are going to be there. It picks the wound from that time open again, and being done by the Dems is just appalling to many.

by splashy 2008-05-27 06:51PM | 0 recs
He has won, no matter what the committee decides.

The outcome of the meeting will be fine with the Obama campaign no matter what is decided.  

Obama will respect the ruling of the committee because, unlike Hillary, he respects the rules.  It's the job of the committee, not desperate candidates, to rule on the situation.

by tibbs 2008-05-27 07:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama 08: Do Not Protest May 31st

As much as Sen. Clinton's supporters want to invent new metrics and change rules whenever it suits them, this is still a contest of obtaining delegates. Even if FL and MI are seated exactly as they already have been selected, the math is strongly against her.

by clawed 2008-05-28 12:20AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads