What he needs to do is to accept that Hillary beat him in both states and give her the votes she won WITHOUT wanting to take votes that he did not earn.
Taking 59 MI dlegegates for "Uncommitted" is VOTE STEALING. Who's to say what votes went to Edwards and the other candidates that chose to opt out?
Posted by SM at May 12, 2008 11:59 AM*delegates!
Posted by SM at May 12, 2008 12:00 PMHow sweet! Obama is going to make nice, now that he's done screwing Florida and Michigan.
Will he bring flowers, too?
OxyCon..of course he screwed them- he is 100% owner of the National Democratic Committee-they do whatever he says. It's amazing that he didn't have them outlaw all the other 48 states so Clinton could run unopposed in them also. I assume you have a giant red ball for a nose, because you most certainly are a clown.
Posted by T2 at May 12, 2008 12:13 PMdid anyone see what terry mc cauliff said about mi when he was the dnc. he threatened carl levin with the same thing dean did to them. russert quoted the lines from his book... mc cauliff imo, tried to spin what he put in print. im sure there's another interpretation, but in 92, threatening mi if they moved up their primary...
again, everyone but clinton and kucinich removed their names from the mi ballot, per the agreed upon rules, and still "other," received 45% of the vote. fl is another matter, however, these arguments that she won mi is a flimsy, wishful, and disengenuous argument.
Posted by anthony at May 12, 2008 12:32 PMIt still amazes me that people believe the rules said the candidates had to remove their names from the MI ballot. FYI, no such ruled exists or existed.
Because there are no facts, there is no truth, Just data to be manipulated
Don Henley-The Garden of Allah
Posted by Radix at May 12, 2008 12:38 PMNo T2, The DNC, Dean, said that if a solution was to be found, both candidates would have to agree, he didn't agree. So, it can and will be argued Obama disenfranchised those voters. The question is, will the voters of MI and Florida see it his way or McCains?
Because there are no facts, there is no truth, Just data to be manipulated
Don Henley-The Garden of Allah
Posted by Radix at May 12, 2008 12:53 PMThe woes of MI and FL are the children of the DNC and the respective state parties. The state parties violated or were compelled to violate the DNC's rules and the DNC operated like a clown show in handling it----it's a disaster.
But every major Dem candidate including Hillary agreed--in writing---to follow the rules and not campaign there. Obama didn't do anything anyone else didn't do to strip them of their delegates. So there was no fair or meaningful contest, vote or delegates "won" in either state.
Once that voting fiasco was over, we entered into "negotiations" as to somehow get the toothpaste back in the tube or get the spilled milk back into the glass. No solution was acceptable to all parties, including revotes, so we're left with a colossal mess. It's hard not to pin this whole thing on the DNC, which seems to have been too rigid and lacking in understanding about FL's Repub-caused dilemma. All sides have been somewhat rigid, including the states that violated the rules. But it's most certainly not Obama's "fault".
Every major candidate concurred, including Hillary, no one objected. Stupid, short-sighted, bureaucratic, hypertechnical, overly solicitous to IA and NH, but unanimous. It's the kind of idiotic thing Repubs NEVER do and we seem ALWAYS to do. We are a very tough party to "lead".
Posted by euzoius at May 12, 2008 12:59 PMBoy you folks are bitter.
oops there is that word again.
Eric in Austin
euzoius, as to Hilary, as early as 1/25/08, she was stating that she was going to get FL and MI seated. So part of your argument is incorrect. If Obama becomes the nominee, it isn't going to matter whether of not McCain puts the blame on the DNC or Obama, they'll be one in the same at that point, "the Democrats" didn't think you mattered.
Because there are no facts, there is no truth, Just data to be manipulated
Don Henley-The Garden of Allah
Posted by Radix at May 12, 2008 01:06 PMWe are a very tough party to "lead".
Yep. It's like herding cats -willful and independent beings. Republi-cons, being more like Lemmings, are much easier to lead -or mislead.
Posted by phidipides at May 12, 2008 01:09 PMRepubli-cons, being more like Lemmings...
I apologize in advance for any demeaning of Lemmings or rodentia in general.
Posted by phidipides at May 12, 2008 01:12 PMAfter that lemming insult you might not want to picnic at the bottom of any cliffs for a while, phiddy.
Posted by TIKI AL at May 12, 2008 01:23 PMFolks, you do know that Hillary, not Obama, has rejected the most recent proposal suggested by MI?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/cq/20080508/pl_cq_politics/politics2719785
This is a plan approved by Clinton supporter Mark Brewer, Clinton supporter Jennifer Granholm, Clinton supporter Joel Ferguson (who submitted the complaint to the DNC), un-announced Clinton supporter Carl Levin, and un-announced Clinton supporter Debbie Dingell.
So how is it that Obama is now the one opposing seating the delegates?
And how is Hillary going to continue making this argument when MI's party, among which Hillary probably has a 9 superdelegate advantage, wants them seated this way?
Posted by at May 12, 2008 01:23 PMThen Obama should have no trouble winning MI. When McCain starts in with the disenfranchisement schtik, Obama can simply blame Hilary. That should do it.
Because there are no facts, there is no truth, Just data to be manipulated
Don Henley-The Garden of Allah
Posted by Radix at May 12, 2008 01:31 PMRadix, Hillary's signing of the DNC's "agreement" not to campaign was Sept 1, 2007. The IA caucus was Jan 3, and the NH primary was the 8th, I think.
At that point Hillary decided maybe that prior "agreement" wasn't working to her benefit and she made the Jan 25 announcement you refer to. What I meant is that all candidates agreed when the issue first raised its ugly head.
There are no clear villians here no matter how you slice it---certainly not Obama---and it won't help anything to claim there are---and I'm not implying that's what you are doing at all.
The parties fucked this up royally, alot of very smart people have tried to find a way out and haven't found a fair one---it's a bad deal, and we'll have to rely on the public spiritedness and goodwill of FL and MI Dems to forgive the whole fiasco. Exactly the kind of foul-up that wasn't needed, it makes ne despair to be a Dem.....
Posted by euzoius at May 12, 2008 01:35 PMRadix
NO ONE who knows anything about Mi's clusterfuck vote believes a delegation from MI won't be seated. No one. We were told we'd be seated (but not count) back in December, and that's what we've been told all the way through. Most likely, the delegation will be precisely the one the MI compromise lays out (though it's unclear whether supers will get seated).
That means MORE Michiganders will be seated in Denver than will be seated in Minnesota--remember, the GOP is seating the MI and FL delegations at half strength. This compromise would seat elected delegates, at least, at full strength.
So you're arguing that McCain is going to effectively campaign that the DEms disenfranchised MI, when in fact the Dems will have given MI's voters more power than the GOP will have? Is that really an argument you're presenting seriously?
Posted by emptywheel at May 12, 2008 01:36 PMeuzoius, this statement
"At that point Hillary decided maybe that prior "agreement" wasn't working to her benefit and she made the Jan 25 announcement you refer to. What I meant is that all candidates agreed when the issue first raised its ugly head."you have no idea what Clinton's motivation was for making that statement, yet you were willing to imply negative motives to it, why? You could have made the same point without that comment. Perhaps gratuitous swipes at Hilary aren't helpful as well?
Because there are no facts, there is no truth, Just data to be manipulated
Don Henley-The Garden of Allah
Posted by Radix at May 12, 2008 01:45 PMRadix.clearly and patently a ridiculous statement:"So, it can and will be argued Obama disenfranchised those voters." Hard to do when his name isn't even on the ballot. Had Clinton simply played by the rules everyone agreed to we wouldn't have this conversation and further, if Clinton was ahead right now with popular and delegates, we wouldn't be having this conversation. We are having it because she has lost the nomination to a person who abided by the rules and now she wants to have single candidate elections like they do in Commie China.
Posted by T2 at May 12, 2008 01:52 PMThat's the logical conclusion to be reached when one changes their position 180 degrees, Radix.
Your defensiveness is a bit too much---Hillary's a big girl, she can take the implication that not doing as well as she expected out of the gate caused her to take a new position on seating FL and MI (where she had leads) from her written agreement. The implications of what she was signing---nonseating--were just as clear on Sept 1, 2007 as they were on Jan 25, 2008.
One must attempt to draw rational conclusions from the evidence. Sorry.
Posted by euzoius at May 12, 2008 01:55 PMthe dnc made the rules before the mi and fl fiasco hit. the candidates agreed to the rules. the dems in mi and fl, caved to the repub assemblies. hilary and kucinich broke the rules in mi, while "other," abided by them. to quote terry mac, "rules, are rules." he now says obama made a calculated gamble. that is a b.s. argument, considering his prior positions concerning mi when he was the dnc chair.
who knows how mi would've turned out if every candidate was on the ballot. to count it as a victory when the playing field was tilted is a straw argument. to count just your votes and discount "other," when "other," played by the rules is too cute by half.
what exactly is disputable about that? as it stands it is up to the dnc, not the candidates to sort out this mess. to lay it soley at obama's feet is a bit rich, no, especially when she, i what anon, above says is true, is against the newest compromise.
Posted by anthony at May 12, 2008 01:57 PMT2,
If Obama becomes the nominee, it isn't going to matter whether of not McCain puts the blame on the DNC or Obama, they'll be one in the same at that point, "the Democrats" didn't think you mattered, this will be McCains line of attack.. So it can and will be argued, blaming Hilary at that point isn't going to help.
Because there are no facts, there is no truth, Just data to be manipulated
Don Henley-The Garden of Allah
Posted by Radix at May 12, 2008 02:00 PMAnthony,
There was no rule requiring any candidate to take their name off the ballot, only that they not campaign there, period. So you might want to discontinue that line of reasoning.
Because there are no facts, there is no truth, Just data to be manipulated
Don Henley-The Garden of Allah
Posted by Radix at May 12, 2008 02:05 PMeuzoius,
That's the logical conclusion to be reached when one changes their position 180 degrees,
Because there are no facts, there is no truth, Just data to be manipulated
Don Henley-The Garden of Allah
Posted by Radix at May 12, 2008 02:55 PMFolks, you do know that Hillary, not Obama, has rejected the most recent proposal suggested by MI?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/cq/20080508/pl_cq_politics/politics2719785
This is a plan approved by Clinton supporter Mark Brewer, Clinton supporter Jennifer Granholm, Clinton supporter Joel Ferguson (who submitted the complaint to the DNC), un-announced Clinton supporter Carl Levin, and un-announced Clinton supporter Debbie Dingell.
So how is it that Obama is now the one opposing seating the delegates?
And this proposal would strip Clinton of four delegates that she earned and assign them to Obama, along with all votes for "uncommitted" PLUS everyone who voted for Kucinich, Dodd and Gravel.
IOW, they want to give Obama her delegates and everyone else's as well.
Really, the only fair thing to do is leave those delegates uncommitted. Sure, he won't be able to count them as part of his "I have more pledged delegates" argument, but they could certainly vote for him at the Convention, being uncommitted.
Posted by zuzu at May 12, 2008 03:22 PMToo little, too late. If it wasn't all about HIM, and was ALL about the Voters, he would have stepped up to the plate when it mattered. EVERYTHING the Obama campaign has projected onto the Clinton Campaign has been what the Obamamanians are indeed guilty of. OBAMA would do anything to win, including NOT COUNTING THE VOTES.
Posted by NoWayObama at May 12, 2008 03:26 PMEric...not as bitter as you will be come Novemeber:)
Posted by NoWayObama at May 12, 2008 03:28 PMHillary rightly rejected the last "solution" since it gave Obama 10 of her delegates that she won. Hey, that's it. Even Obama knows he can't win without her delegates!
Posted by NoWayObama at May 12, 2008 03:33 PMHow does a "low information" voter like T2 end up being an Obama supporter? I thought Hillary had the ignorant rube vote. You either have to be totally clueless, or you have your head up your sphincter if you aren't informed about all the different ways Obama made sure that Florida and Michigan would not count in this close election.
Posted by OxyCon at May 12, 2008 04:17 PMYou guys are ignoring the importance of my point. Say what you will about MI's clusterfuck, and pretend that most of the uncommitted delegates haven't already gone solidly into Obama's pocket through--gasp--a democratic process.
But the real point is EVEN HILLARY'S BEST SUPPORTERS in MI have given up on the points you're now making. So no matter how often you say on a blog thread that the result is wrong, it's not going to matter because there is no practical way for Hillary to claim those delegates now, now that her own supporters in a place to do somethign about it have gone on the record saying they don't think she should get those delegates.
Posted by emptywheel at May 13, 2008 11:27 AM