Which isn't to say that Obama doesn't also have a valid argument, as pledged delegate leader. If Clinton prevails in the popular vote, both candidates will have valid claims to be the rightful nominee.
"Rightful"? What the hell is that?
Posted by dj moonbat at May 21, 2008 11:10 AMsorry, but it's over, and Obama is going to beat McCain like a rented mule:
Obama:
...But this year's Republican primary was a contest to see which candidate could out-Bush the other, and that is the contest John McCain won. The Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% of Americans that once bothered Senator McCain's conscience are now his only economic policy...
I will leave it up to Senator McCain to explain to the American people whether his policies and positions represent long-held convictions or Washington calculations, but the one thing they don't represent is change.
Change is a tax code that rewards work instead of wealth by cutting taxes for middle-class families, and senior citizens, and struggling homeowners; a tax code that rewards businesses that create good jobs here in America instead of the corporations that ship them overseas. That's what change is....
These posts are getting to be increasingly bizarre, turkana, and I've always admired you. Look, in a contest (whatever kind of contest) the rules, agreed upon by the participants, matter. The participants, including Clinton's people, actually set up these rules and agreed to abide by them. Under these rules the "popular vote" as in the sheer number of voters doesn't actually matter and can't even be fully assessed. Since some states have caucuses, which force more intensity but generally have lower turnout, and others have primaries and still others (like texas) have both caucuses and primaries and also apportion the delegates based on *last time's turnout*.
We aren't talking about bragging rights here, we are talking about the nomination to lead a particular party with its own kinky, stupid, bizarre rules for throwing that person up. If HRC didn't want to win the democratic party nomination but simply wanted a popular vote blowout she could have run as a third party candidate. but she wanted this particular nomination (and more power to her.)
By the standards of this particular race she has lost, and for all intents and purposes was losing badly quite a while ago. Because the race was for pledged delegates with the superdelegates as makeweight. The race was also for delegates who had not been disallowed by the party. Both candidates *do not have valid claims* to be the rightful nominee under the pledged delegate + superdelegate rules as they stand. they can't, because the system isn't set up to create a tie but to break a tie.
HRC has gotten very close to a tie but she has fallen short of it. Throwing in extraneous numbers, like the popular vote, is simply a way of obfuscating that fact for her supporters and of discrediting obama and his voters. The purpose of that is tactically obvious. It benefits HRC if somethign happens that is unexpected like she gets her way with the fl or michigan voters (substantially changing the game at the last minute) or if obama is (g-d forbid) killed a la bobby kennedy. But a candidate who banks on either of those chances is a deeply sick and flawed candidate and does not deserve the kind of respect and devotion she has gotten from you.
I understand the desire to defend clinton and I have done so. But the more I actually see of this campaign, and the overheated rhetoric of some of her supporters, the more I have come to detest her. I never thought of her or bill as "divisive" I thought of the country as forcibly divided by the ratfucking tactics of the republicans over the last 15 to 30 years. but really there is no one to blame but clinton and her staff for the level of just sheer awfulness of the last part of this campaign. I would have happilly given clinton my vote, over obama, if she had been attacking mccain and the republicans for the entire of her campaign. Happilly. I voted for obama and against clinton because I didn't need a candidate who thought the enemy was other democrats. I wanted a candidate who thought the enemy was the republicans. Obama didn't start out with that perspective, but I think he's learned his lesson. they both had a chance to grow in this campaign--but only one of them really grew in stature, the other just seemed to shrink.
aimai
Posted by aimai at May 21, 2008 11:28 AMthank you, Turkana. Well said. The only comment I'd offer is on how badly broken the system is. The flaws in the system have not reared their head in years past due to the fact the party nominee was clear very early in the process. And the process itself was vastly shorter than the one we are now enduring. So the system did work, under those circumstances. The circumstances we have now, with two candidates barely separated on votes/delegates creates problems, especially for the losing candidate, apparently. I'm not sure we'll see such a campaign play out again, but one thing is clear to me; Unless all state party committees, and all candidates, agree to abide by whatever the rules are at the time, no amount of rule changes will preclude another situation where one candidate will cry foul and demand another rule change. In other words, you play the game by the rules, and win fair and square based on the rules when the game starts, not when it finishes. Otherwise, you're no better than George W. Bush.
Posted by T2 at May 21, 2008 11:31 AMuh, gee, aimai- where do the rules say that the popular vote doesn't matter?
neither candidate can win with pledged delegates, the superdelegates will decide the race, and there are no rules at all as to how they're to determine their votes. they're moving to obama. which is fine. if they moved to clinton, that also would be fine.
Posted by Turkana at May 21, 2008 11:32 AMvia John Cole:
Line of the night to Ron Reagan- “If Appalachia was a country, Hillary Clinton could be President.”
Posted by Gay Veteran at May 21, 2008 11:45 AMgay vet,
not to mention california...
Posted by Turkana at May 21, 2008 11:53 AMTherein lies the problem. Superdelegates are moving to Obama taking into consideration all the factors in the race. That sits well with even strident Clinton supporters. Under the exact same set of fact were superdelegates to have moved to Clinton I believe that Obama supporters would rightly or wrongly see that as illegitimate because of his absolute majority in pledged delegates.
I think even non fervent Obama supporters would flinch at such an imposition of elite rule from party insiders.
I have always said that superdelegates have the absolute right to nullify the outcome of the pledged delegate contests but they should have a clear and convincing reason for doing so. A candidate having a lead in the popular vote does not, in my opinion, rise to that level.
Posted by PaulDem at May 21, 2008 12:00 PMOnly problem with this legitimacy argument is that legitimacy is in the eye of the voting beholder. This is politics, not law or profesional sports - where the rules (especially primary rules) matter. If enough voters in the general think one candidate is illegtimate becasue 2 states weren't included, and the candidate is a "48-state nominee," it won't matter what argument you can make on a blog. Perception is reality in politics and if the perception is illegitimacy by enough people, then the candidate is illegitmate. And, that, dear friends, is a problem.
Posted by Dawn at May 21, 2008 12:06 PMas I re-read, Turkana your "valid" popular vote victory for Clinton includes Florida...the votes of which are "invalid". Up until the time the DNC decides to count those votes, nobody should be using them to "validate" Hillary's claim. How about just dealing in reality, for the time being.
Posted by T2 at May 21, 2008 12:07 PMTurkana,
The rules say the "popular vote" doesn't matter because the rules specify *how delegates* are chosen and the overall popular vote of all the states voting isn't counted and therefore "doesn't matter." Perhaps we are using "matter" in different ways. In a game where points are awarded for scoring goals the relative enthusiasm, good cheer, behavior or number of supporters of a given team "doesn't matter" in determining who wins. That isn't to say that it doesn't give one team bragging rights over the other. But it doesn't "confer legitimacy" on their win and doesn't affect the win or lose scenario. Or, as you might say, close doesn't matter.
I just don't get where it gets you, personally, or clinton's democratic voters to continue to insist that she wuz robbed. She ran a great campaign, and he ran a greater one. She had a lot of voters and delegates, and he ended up with more. She had a lot of superdelegate support, undeclared, at the start of the race but that has dwindled considerably since then. On every metric but the made up ones she lost this race quite a while ago. I don't think that's a problem, every race has a winner and a loser and I don't think any the worse of her as a candidate because she ran a very close race and nearly beat the winner. I object to the continued smearing of the process and of the winner with cries of "valid claims" to be the nominee. She *would have had a valid claim* if she could have beaten or tied him in *pledged delegates* including superdelegates (many of whom were pledged early on in the process). She didn't tie him, or even come close. The whole introduction of the "popular vote" fiction was a purely rhetorical strategy to enable her to push (against the prior agreement of her own team) for the seating of FL and MI delegates.
I actually argued early on that there was no reason not to seat those delegates. But on reconsidering the logic of the system, however crazy, I came to the conclusion that absent a revote which clinton herself didn't support, it ought not to be done.
What bugs me about this discussion is the ephemeral nature of the arguments. If you take the arguments for why Clinton's loss is nearly a valid claim to have won one by one they are hugely easy to knock down. But somehow clinton and her supporters keep offering a new rationale, often utterly outside the scope of the old ones, and the sheer number of these rationales is supposed to convince us that their weakness doesn't matter.
Turkana, I've lost a huge amount of respect for you and for this site over the last few months. I used to come here and read here--hell, you guys were sweet enough to link to me on the first day I ever blogged officially! I'll never forget that. But really, at a certain point Clinton people are going to be left with a failed campaign on their hands. Clinton herself is going to do a volte face and support Obama wholeheartedly because she is nothing if not a political realist. And her own supporters are going to feel doubly betrayed, I think, when they realize they have been fervently making angry arguments and accusations that Clinton herself is going to end up disavowing and pretending she never made.
aimai
Posted by aimai at May 21, 2008 12:07 PMPaulDem, if the popular vote, in your opinion, doesn't rise to that level, then what does?
Because there are no facts, there is no truth, Just data to be manipulated
Don Henley-The Garden of Allah
Credit where credit is due, this is an entirely fair and rational take on things.
Posted by Geek, Esq. at May 21, 2008 12:12 PMaimai,
i never said anyone was robbed- my post is quite the opposite of that. as to your sports analogy, you omit the simple and ineluctable fact that, by the rules, neither team can score enough points to win the game. the margin of victory will be determined by something else. something utterly arbitrary. the superdelegates can decide however they want, and if they decided that the popular vote was determinant, there is nothing in the rules to say they can't do that.
Posted by Turkana at May 21, 2008 12:15 PMDawn,
Of course its a problem, but its a problem because HRC made it a problem. Oddly enough every state didn't used to have a primary, and yet candidates were still seen as legitimate. Both FL and MI were warned not to do what they did and all the campaigns agreed to it. If HRC hadn't insisted that FL and MI were being "robbed" they would have been no worse off than states used to be that didnt hold primaries. HRC is forcing the DNC to look like its "suppressing" the will of the people in those two states when, in fact, of course it was the state parties that chose to disenfranchise their voters. And there is zero evidence that FL and MI voters will spite vote their way to McCain--or would have done so absent the very ugly politicking of the clinton campaign.
At every cycle some people don't get their candidate--I personally have never gotten my pick--which means that some portion of every state doesn't get to have their state reps stand up and say "the great state of X chooses Aimai's candidate" and yet---I always turn out to vote for the dem and oddly enough most dem voters do too. Its absurd to argue that voters in MI and FL, --where MI *didnt' even* get the choice on the ballot and FL voters, of course (like MA ones) didn't get to vote for edwards who'd dropped out by then)-- will be more disenfranchised at the general election than any other democratic voter who voted for the losing candidate in his or her state. And we don't routinely excoriate the winning candidate for illegtimacy, or exalt the refuseniks, for the willingness of voters to shoot themselves in the foot rather than to support the party's nominee.
aimai
Posted by aimai at May 21, 2008 12:17 PMaimmai, you're argument makes no sense.
"The rules say the "popular vote" doesn't matter because the rules specify *how delegates* are chosen and the overall popular vote of all the states voting isn't counted and therefore "doesn't matter."
The delegates are chose by popular vote, that's how the rules specify the assignment of delegates. Obama doesn't have the number of pledged delegates necessary to claim the nomination, Clinton either. So it's up to the Super Delegates to decide, there are no requirements that bind the SD's in how they vote.
Because there are no facts, there is no truth, Just data to be manipulated
Don Henley-The Garden of Allah
Turkana,
I think we are arguing about how many angels on the head of a pin at this point. Its true the superdelegates can vote however they want but I believe it has been indicated that they won't overturn the pledged delegate winner. They could have been committed to
a) the popular vote winner
or
b) the candidate they think can pull the most independents in a close race
or
c) a favorite son/daughter
but I think the reporting on what they say they *will* choose on has been pledged delegates plus some vague notion of who has the big mo. I agree that that is a rather vague standard and, of course,t hat is exactly what HRC has been going for when she sais "I lead in the popuar vote, which is a very important indicator." That remark, quoted below, is entirely different from "I lead in the popular vote which is very important..." She is admitting that its not important in and of itself, but only insofar as it can sway the superdelegates. She seems to think it will. I don't think it will because
a) its not actually true.
b) its not actually dispositive of who has the big mo.
c) it disenfranchises as many people as it enfranchises.
But either way its a sheer afterthought for a campaign. This argument is starting to sound insane, really. I would have voted for her if she were the nominee but she's not going to be. And all this bizarre post hoc rationalization is just keeping us from focusing on beating mccain since, apparently, we still have to do the work of pleading with hrc's supporters to support the actual democratic party nominee instead of taking for granted that they will do the right thing.
I see that/grasp that you have already conceded a lot in even saying that "it is almost certain that the superdelegates will choose obama" and in admitting that he will be as legitimate a nominee as clinton would have been if luck had cut her way. But polls show that a huge number of clinton's voters say that they simply won't accept obama's legitimacy and won't vote for him. Why is that? I don't think its because a huge number of clinton's voters were racist and would never vote for a black guy. I think its because a huge number of clinton voters have been told over and over again that obama was a terrible candidate, a liar, a manchurian figure (variously a muslim, an arch christian, a communist or a wall street shill, a gay sexist pig, a fascist communitarian) who is bound to lose. Well, he's obviously none of that. Moreover the whole "bound to lose" thing is a self fulfilling prophecy that is utterly tied up with the way Clinton and her surrogates fought this campaign. I'm disgusted that she and her surrogates spent as much time handicapping him for the general as they did running the damn campaign.
This is a problem for the general election but its a problem that is of clinton's own making. She poisoned the well for him even as his lead was growing and the enthusiasm for him among new voters was growing. That was, well, spiteful and malicious in political terms, the more so the closer she gets to losing the race outright.
aimai
Posted by aimai at May 21, 2008 12:28 PMRadix,
I cross posted with you so didn't see your comment. The delegates are "not chosen by popular vote." By definition a caucus vote is not a popular vote. In Texas the delegates are portioned out according to voter turnout in a previous election cycle so no matter how many voters turn out for that primary/caucus the absolute popular vote total is not reflected in the delegates. This is quite common--we don't have "popular vote" for the presidency either. We have apportionement of electors based on some other nutty system. There is a hugely complicated system for choosing delegates but whatever it is it is not popular. If you don't know that, what are you posting on politics for?
aimai
Posted by aimai at May 21, 2008 12:33 PMDeath or incapacitation of a candidate. Evidence of criminal behavior. Clear evidence of unfitness for service as President.
The overarching factor for all of these situations would be a general consensus within the party - including supporters of the candidate in question - that the candidate should not be nominated.
We're not even in the same ballpark as that in this case.
Posted by PaulDem at May 21, 2008 12:37 PMaimai, each state is assigned a set number of delegates that they will in turn assigned to specific candidates, true? What mechanism do states use to assign these predetermined number of delegates? It's the popular vote isn't it? So, for example, CA holds a primary, the delegates that CA has is then apportioned out based on the results of this primary, right? Caucuses work the same way. You go to a caucus site cast your vote, the candidate that receives more votes gets the win. So, the assignment of delegates is all done by popular, in some fashion or other.
Because there are no facts, there is no truth, Just data to be manipulated
Don Henley-The Garden of Allah
Posted by Geek, Esq. at May 21, 2008 12:12 PM
Are you now part of the Official Obama Make Nice Brigade?
Of course it's fair--because it benefits Obama, whom you support. And when he goes down in flames in November will you be willing to stand up and say "credit where credit is due, it was fair"?
Posted by Blue State Girl at May 21, 2008 12:51 PMWhat mechanism do states use to assign these predetermined number of delegates? It's the popular vote isn't it?
Umm, no. Not universally, anyway.
Posted by dj moonbat at May 21, 2008 12:52 PMaimai, you do realize that "pledged delegates" are also able to vote for whomever they want to at the convention. Check the absurd rulz. A pledged delegate switched from Clinton to Obama just recently and I heard no one from the Obama camp complaining...and Clinton said that's right they can switch. That's the problem the guidelines and the rulz that are used to determine the eventual nominee are all vaguely moving targets set in quicksand (Calvinball) and that's why this process is so ridiculous and imo very undemocratic...but whatever it is what it is and that's what absurd rulz they're using for this process and that's the way it is. From what I've been reading it looks like the only "vote" that really matters is the vote that takes place at the convention on the floor. And before I get bashed for being some overheated shrill Clinton supporter I will vote for whomever wins the nomination (which Obama looks most likely to be).
Turkana this is a great post but I have one minor point. I know you said it would be "fair" for either candidate to be declared the legitimate nominee based on some different scenarios with the popular vote, but I personally don't think the rulz are actually "fair" per se , but they are the rulz they are following so that's just the way it goes. The process is absurd as you stated. I accept that this is the process for this year's nomination...but it certainly needs to be changed for the future.
Posted by emal at May 21, 2008 12:54 PMdj moonbat, I disagree, even caucuses, at the caucus site level, cast votes, the candidate with the most votes wins. Is this not correct?
Because there are no facts, there is no truth, Just data to be manipulated
Don Henley-The Garden of Allah
Turkana, I think I've bumped heads with you enough times to simply state that I'll agree to disagree slightly on the importance of the popular vote versus delegate count, and disagree a bit more moderately on how those popular votes are counted.
I would note, however, that the popular vote lead number you posted for Obama has been growing secondary to the tallying vote in Oregon. At present, the number you used is now 264,564. Admittedly, that has not changed the percentage lead, however (still at 0.7%).
Posted by MisterOpus1 at May 21, 2008 01:04 PMWhen there's a dispute, let's go to the rule books.
What do the rules say about what wins the nomination? Delegates or the popular vote?
Turkana, laugh all you want, but you're looking sillier and sillier all the time.
Now when you peruse the rule book, what does it say about primaries that don't count? My guess is that it says that primaries that don't count don't count.
You may not like the hodgepodge of caucuses and primaries. That's how the states chose to do it, and those primaries and caucuses that were held at times when approved by the DNC and within DNC guidelines all count. Cumulative popular votes don't count towards delegates, although more reasonable tabulations, which EXCLUDE THE TWO PRIMARIES THAT DON'T COUNT, show that Obama is about a half million votes ahead of Clinton. Electoral votes of states won by a plurality of popular votes don't count towards a nomination either.
I am sure I've seen this tired alternative universe displayed here and at TalkLeft and elsewhere dozens of times now.
Only one candidate has a valid claim to be the nominee, and that's the one who played by the party's rules and won the most delegates.
Stop beating a dead horse. It's over. Get on the bus.
Posted by Bob In Pacifica at May 21, 2008 01:06 PMAimai:
You are acting as if the democrats hadn't lost 5 out of the last 7 presidential elections. The fact that we don't have every state vote in the primary process but usually declare the victor after IA and NH (like with Kerry) is A PROBLEM FOR US, because we NEVER truly gauge how strong a candidate is across the board. This primary is the only one in my memory where we are getting a real feel through a (still hopefully) 50 state process as to who will be stronger in the general.
Of course, leave it up to the democratic leadership to screw this up too by ending up with a 48 state process when it could have been 50.
And, blaming Hillary Clinton for everything under the sun isn't going to amount to a hill of beans in Nov. (If you get a pimple, do you blame her too?) I'm not quite sure what your blathering on about you never getting the candidate you want is supposed to prove. Unless you somehow count for about a million votes on your own, the only thing that still matters - which is my point - is how much the most number of voters perceive the process to be unfair and the candidate to be illegitimate.
Posted by Dawn at May 21, 2008 01:10 PMBy the way, Turkana, a lot of things have changed in California since the primaries. If there was a do-over today Obama might very well beat Clinton. He'll certainly carry it in November.
Posted by Bob In Pacifica at May 21, 2008 01:15 PMBtw a lot of things have changed since election 2004 and if you had a do-over today Kerry might very well beat Bush.
Turkana, please file that comment made at 1:15 under stupid trolls. That one is certainly in the running for top comment in that category this year...although I realize there are many many more months ahead of us.
Posted by emal at May 21, 2008 01:25 PMBob In Pacifica, you are correct, it is the total delegate count that matters. You leave out, however, neither candidate has the number of pledged delegates necessary to win. So we must look at the rules and see what happens next. When neither candidate receives enough pledged delegates to win the nomination, the SD's then may cast their vote for either candidate, right? And there are no rules binding the SD's criteria for choosing whom they cast their votes, true? So, candidates are free to make any argument they like as to why and SD should choose them instead of the other, including an argument based on popular vote totals. Now, how has my argument misstated the rules?
Posted by Radix at May 21, 2008 01:27 PMDawn, today Gallup says that Obama polls 26% over Clinton among Democrats. And by ten points over McCain when Barr and Nader are included (8 by the two alone).
A gap of 26% suggests that after almost all of the states have voted in primaries that the general consensus among Democrats is that Obama is choice.
As an aside, I would like to see a Clinton supporter recognize the Clinton campaign's part in denying those two states representation.
Posted by Bob In Pacifica at May 21, 2008 01:32 PMemal, How is saying that Obama would run better against Clinton in California now than in early February be seen as stupid? In every state popularity changes over time, and if Gallup is projecting a 26% gap between Obama and Clinton nationally it would not be too far a stretch to imagine that the voting public has changed choices since they've voted.
In early February people in California didn't know much about Obama and Clinton was well-known. I haven't seen a recent survey of California voters on the subject, but I would guess that the totals have tightened and it's not unreasonable to see Obama winning if the primary were held in June (when it used to be held until this election cycle).
The comment was made in response to a Turkana comment about Clinton being queen of Appalachia or California.
Of course, if I'm in the running for something then vote for me. Nothing like being voted a troll by a fool.
Posted by Bob In Pacifica at May 21, 2008 01:44 PMHowdy Turkana. Long time reader, first time commenter.
As one commenter wrote above, I will have to respectfully agree to disagree on the role of the popular vote in the Democratic nominating process.
Although you wouldn't know it through the last two terms of the Bush administration, we are nation of laws. I would amend that statement to say that we are also a nation of rules.
I think the time and place to have this debate is in Denver but not with regards to Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. I would welcome a change to a uniform primary system based on popular vote; no offense to the caucuses, but we don't live in the 19th century any longer. Like it or not, we are a 21st century culture of retail politics.
While I will advocate for uniform popular vote primaries beginning in 2012, I will fight tooth and nail against the idea that the popular vote has any legitimacy in our conversation in 2008. This isn't a contested European monarchy succession or some inbred free for all like the House of Saud; there is no legitimacy for the popular vote in 2008 in the nomination process. There is only the delegate math. Those are the rules that everyone agreed to when they began their campaigns.
The worst thing we could do to this party right now is to change the scoring for this nomination in the 12th hour. To do so would signal that we...Obama supporters and Clinton supporters and those who have no dog in this hunt...have no legitimacy as a party because we cannot even follow our own rules. It simply cannot be done and I would hope that we all will eventually see what a catastrophe that would be no matter who was leading whom.
Uniform popular vote primaries in 2012; delegate math in 2008.
Posted by Patrick at May 21, 2008 01:48 PMRadix, I agree up to the superdelegates not required to vote for any candidate. They aren't required to vote for the candidate with the most popular votes. And they certainly aren't required to vote for someone who claims to have the popular vote including two state primaries which were declared invalid prior to their being held, and the superdelegates aren't required to devalue caucus states in any of their calculations.
The best that can be said about the popular vote is to say that it is one of the many different things that a superdelegate may possibly use in determining who she/he'll vote for. Prior to Super Tuesday most superdelegates who committed gave the nod to Clinton. Since then the vast majority of SDs committing have gone to Obama.
The fact that the popular vote between the two candidates is so close makes this race something special. But that doesn't mean that the rules don't apply.
Posted by Bob In Pacifica at May 21, 2008 01:52 PMpatrick,
i generally agree with you, except that even if the superdelegates did give the nomination to clinton (which they won't) based on a popular vote win (which she still has a chance of achieving), that actually would be in accordance with the rules. because the rules allow them to do anything. even this year. which is one of the many aspects to the rules that needs to be changed. that's why there are these arguments- because the actual rules, as written, provide no clarity for a close and contested race.
Posted by Turkana at May 21, 2008 01:56 PMHave not read all the comments, not sure if anyone else addressed this. The problem is the rules were not followed. The rules were selectively enforced with 2 out of 6 states being punished to provide Obama with momentum. We will never know who would have won without the thumb on the scale by Donna and Howard. Also Howard and Obama had a nice circular theory for not doing anything about Michigan. Dean said up to candidates, both have to agree and Obama said up to DNC and out of his hands. That way neither had to take responsibility. They have made selection process a mockery.
Posted by formerhoosier at May 21, 2008 01:59 PMsimple question: why aren't any Obama supporters complaining about the process if it is so unfair? A process so unfair couldn't just be unfair to one candidate in the same race as another, could it? I mean, the rules are letters on paper...they don't know who's running. What I'm hearing here is that the rules, agreed to by all parties in advance, are only unfair to Clinton, and have no impact on Obama. Sounds like a losers lament, to me.
Posted by T2 at May 21, 2008 02:16 PM"You are acting as if the democrats hadn't lost 5 out of the last 7 presidential elections."
I hope you aren't suggesting that more people voted for Bush than for the Democrat in the last two elections, because there is no evidence that that is the case.
Posted by Avedon at May 21, 2008 02:23 PM"simple question: why aren't any Obama supporters complaining about the process if it is so unfair?"
Hilarious.
Actually, though, this is demonstrably false. Any cursory familiarity with the liberal blogosphere would acquaint you with prominent Obama supporters who think the process is idiotic.
Posted by rilkefan at May 21, 2008 02:40 PMTurkana, it's always a pleasure to read plain truth expressed clearly.
Of course it's almost always saddening to see it received with incomprehension and denial.
Posted by rilkefan at May 21, 2008 02:44 PMThe stated rules of the campaign were that it was a contest for delegates, and the rules were known in advance. If it was a contest for votes, the proper campaign tactics would have been utterly different. That's why the popular vote argument is fundamentally a dishonest one. No state would choose a caucus if it reduced their "weight" in the tally by a factor of three. Different people turn out in beauty contests (Fl/Mi) and real contested elections. Votes turn out differently when there is an active campaign.
The Clinton campaign has been dishonest and divisive, instead presenting their tally as some sort of valid alternate scoreboard. It's also being used to delegitimize the party nominee, which makes it even worse.
Posted by Marc at May 21, 2008 02:46 PMrifcan, the question wasn't "is the process idiotic"....the question was "why isn't the Obama camp crying foul like the Clinton camp is". There is a difference between "idiotic" and "unfair". Is that too difficult a distinction for you to make?
Posted by T2 at May 21, 2008 02:52 PMHey! I agree that the system is flawed...but I'm glad to see Obama take the nomination! I was browsing through a bunch of political websites and blogs (mostly liberal ones) and I came across your blog and find it to be very interesting. There are a bunch of others I like too, like huff post, and other news sites like politico. Do you know of any that cover politics and the environment? I saw earthlab.com which has mostly environmental info but some politics. I took EarthLab.com’s carbon calculator (http://www.earthlab.com/signupprofile/). It was pretty easy to use (and it doesn’t make me feel guilty after I take it). Are there any other blogs you would recommend? Can you drop me a link to your favorites or any ones with green info?
Posted by Adrian at May 21, 2008 02:55 PMFirst, Bob in Pacifica - I'm not a "Hillary supporter." I voted for Obama in WA state, but since then I've seen him grow increasingly weaker as a general election candidate and I hate the whole "blame Hillary" (do you set that to the tune of "blame Canada") stuff from Obama supporters which just ensures that we will AGAIN ignore harsh realities staring us in the face.
After all, it's not my imagination, that democrats snatch defeat from the jaws of victory endlessly. Part of it is the circular firing squad we seem to always do and part of it is ignoring reality staring us in the face.
The gallup #s you cite make no sense. Probably because of the way you describe them and probably because I'll take actual voting patterns over polling any day. And, that ain't how democrats have been or are actually voting these last 6 weeks. (Plus, I looked at gallup's website and their top story is "Obama's Challenge Among White Voters," so not sure what the confusing #s you cite are supposed to mean).
But, I throw up my hands. I care about winning in Nov. but most of the dem leadership seems to care only about rules and losing in Nov.
Posted by Dawn at May 21, 2008 03:03 PMadrian,
we do a lot of enviro stuff, here. i had been posting a nightly link about global warming, but have been very hectic the past week or so. i'll resume next week, hopefully. one of our writers- christina hulbe- is a climate scientist.
Posted by Turkana at May 21, 2008 03:13 PMWell, I suppose that [the] "Gore won the popular vote" argument will be retired if Hillary wins the popular vote and Obama gets the nomination.
Posted by Bagley at May 21, 2008 03:39 PMBob in Pacifica,
"The fact that the popular vote between the two candidates is so close makes this race something special. But that doesn't mean that the rules don't apply."
Not sure what you're shooting for here. There are no rules telling the SD's how to make their choice, so what rules are you referring to?
Posted by Radix at May 21, 2008 03:58 PMThey can't run a simple primary election without destroying themselves, and they think they deserve being turned loose on the world?
Next year this time, B. Hussein Obama will be as popular as Al Gore and John Kerry.
Naw, the Liberals won't retire "Gore won the popular vote". They have different rules for each situation.
In fact, I don't think they have any stinkin rules.
What fun, like watching a train wreck in slow motion!
What none of you seem to want to consider are the Left Wing Liberal Women. They fielded the most qualified, experienced candidate of the two currently running. Which isn't saying much.
Now they see the Nomination being stolen away from them by a less qualified man. Little wonder so many Senator Clinton voters plan to vote for Senator McCain in the November election.
Had B. Hussein Obama been properly vetted before the early primaries, you wouldn't have this disaster. All his mentors, advisors, associates, beliefs would have cleared him away early.
Sure is fun watching though!
Refreshingly honest about the situation at hand. By any conceivable metric, either candidate has a valid case to make. If you look at the electoral map base on recent polls - which of course could change - Clinton should be the choice of the Democratic Party. I could see how Obama might be chosen as the nominee if, for example, a pass was taken on winning this 2008 election while developing further the 50 state strategy and changing the prospects of 2010 and 2012 elections. But then there is the Supreme Court, whose members should actually be democratically elected by a national primary and then general election. The Senate could retain the authority to accept or not accept the populat vote winner for candidates. Other than that, considering the fiscal health of this country, I don't see how Obama or Clinton could accomplish one tenth of what they have proposed, if that, so the choice could either be made based on Clinton's stronegr economic chops and administrative familiarity and experience, or Obama's appeal to younger, college educated men and others who want to see a face of the advancement of corporate interests. It's pretty obvious that the voters that Obama attracts are the Investor Class and their children. Democratic leaders have a tough choice to make. What most are saying know albeit not openly is that Obama would serve as an innocuous strawman to advance the interests of the Investor Class while appeasing naive, ideologically liberal guilt and fantasies.
Posted by justslap at May 21, 2008 04:23 PMFox news is pushing the idea that Obama will promise Hillary a seat on the Supreme Court to get her off his back.
Is this to motivate the knuckle draggers to send money to McCain?
Justice Clinton a possibility?
Posted by TIKI AL at May 21, 2008 04:31 PMOf course it's fair--because it benefits Obama, whom you support. And when he goes down in flames in November will you be willing to stand up and say "credit where credit is due, it was fair"?
No, when that happens (which I'm increasingly afraid it will) then half the Dem party will be backing Hillary for 2012, and the other half will be singing Dawn's suggestion; "Blame Hillary! Blame Hillary!" And Hillary herself, after what her fellow Dems have put her through, will say "No, thanks." and go back to being a Senator or perhaps a governor.
So, we end up with President McCain, (which will make the GOP happy, as well as the Dems who didn't want "another Clinton or a Bush".) BO will never be given another shot at the nomination, Hillary will be blamed for his loss, and we'll lose two strong candidates for the Presidency.
Maybe I should change my screen name to "Cassandra" after all.
Posted by Blue Jean at May 21, 2008 04:34 PMApparently the DNC and some of the Super Delegates are aware of the Sinclair issue.
Read it here.
http://larrysinclair0926.wordpress.com/2008/05/21/dncsds-refuse-to-disclose-obamasinclair-drug-sex-encounters/
Is this a real issue? I think that it is.
I think that Obama (and not one of his surrogates) has to address this straight on.
Only time will tell.
Posted by Troubled American at May 21, 2008 04:35 PMNope, TIKI Al, you can relax; Hillary is in her 60s. If BO gets to appoint a Justice (and I hope the next Justice is appointed by a Democrat) then he'll find someone in the forties or fifties.
Posted by Blue Jean at May 21, 2008 04:39 PMThe term 'calvin ball' can't really be used to indicate a process by which all the rules are followed to the letter throughout the entire process.
Well, I guess it can because you just did that, but it kind of makes you sound insane.
Posted by Soullite at May 21, 2008 04:59 PM...uh, gee, aimai- where do the rules say that the popular vote doesn't matter?...
When Hillary early on -before Obama was on her radar - followed the rules and said Florida and Michigan wouldn't count? Maybe you're only talking about the electoral college? Maybe you're talking about a Dem president and spouse who conspired to give republi-cons everything they wanted and called it triangulation? But I digress.
Posted by phidipides at May 21, 2008 05:36 PMIf Obama wins in the general election, or if Hillary wins in the general election, and US troops -- under [their] respective Administrations -- are sent to fight a war can we (also) retire the "chicken hawk" argument?
Posted by Bagley at May 21, 2008 05:40 PMThis constant refrain regarding the popular vote in the democratic primary, when Obama has the overwhelming lead in the points that count, are a bit like the bears games from 1984. One side racks up a bunch of yards, and the bears win the points.
Measuring yardage isn't how that game is played, and it isn't how this one is either. If you want to change it, get involved year in and year out like some of us do, and not just in that year your candidate is injured by the rules they agreed to. Bill would have never been president without the Iowa causcus system.
Posted by ltgesq at May 21, 2008 05:49 PM"Bill would have never been president without the Iowa causcus system."
No, actually, Bill would have never become President without Ross Perot.
Posted by Bagley at May 21, 2008 06:13 PMMarkle: "What fun, like watching a train wreck in slow motion!"
Like American under Little Boots.
It's going to be fun watching Obama kick McSame's ass.
hey Bagless Bagley, where's Osama? you know, the guy Bush LET escape
Posted by gay veteran at May 21, 2008 06:19 PMTurkana,
Are you counting the caucus states in the popular vote?
Posted by Joe B at May 21, 2008 06:59 PM"hey Bagless Bagley, where's Osama?"
What is that same note?
I really cannot place it.
Any help out there?
Posted by Bagley at May 21, 2008 07:22 PMTurkana, are you coming around? Is this the same Turkana I never agree with? Did I enter a alternate universe? Wow man, you are making sense. Rock on !
Posted by Joe at May 21, 2008 07:41 PMFunny, I just don't think Obama is likeable enough.
Posted by No Blood for Hubris at May 21, 2008 07:46 PMFunny, I just don't think Obama is likeable enough.
I just don't think I'll ever get over seeing and hearing him dismiss that reporter with such a condescending "sweetie." He's only 47 years old and he should know better than to let that one slip.
Posted by Sharon at May 21, 2008 07:55 PMTroubled American, The Globe (the one in the supermarket lines) has been on the "gay sex drug shooting killer lover limousine" thing for a long time. I suspect they'll actually document something right after they firm up the facts about the space aliens who visited Bill and Hillary in the White House back in the nineties. In the meantime, if it scares you from voting for Obama, think of what it would be like to have a President under control of Martians.
Posted by Bob In Pacifica at May 21, 2008 07:55 PMLegitimacy?
I hate to tell you, but Obama is as legitimate as is necessary, without pandering to Hillary's ego.
Listen to Nancy Pelosi tonight on Newshour:
"How our delegates are selected is by a process and the person who has the most delegates becomes the nominee of the party. It's not been about the popular vote....at the end of the day someone will have the winning number of delegates. Delegate vote is the currency of the realm at the Democratic National Convention."
And given that Hillary has changed the metrics for winning almost daily, what in God's name makes you think she'd finally accept reality, that she has lost?
Why, she'd just come up with a new metric.
Posted by Barbara at May 21, 2008 08:03 PMDawn: The numbers that don't make sense to you are from today's Gallup poll. When candidates win their primaries there is usually a big jump in their numbers. I imagine that the 26% spread that Obama has over Clinton is more a realization by former Clinton supporters that she has lost. Maybe not some of the more hardcore supporters but the other less dogmatic ones.
As far as Obama appearing "weak" over the last six weeks, remember that Clinton went on the low road while Obama refused. Bob Parry at ConsortiumNews revealed recently that the very "scandals" that were used to attack Obama over the last six weeks were all part of the Clinton campaign's "opposition research" that was ready to go in December. (There's still a scandal to do with Obama's dead mother that hasn't been used yet.) The right-wing media, Fox News, Limbaugh, Colter and others were all working for Clinton and against Obama.
In my long life I cannot remember a Democrat attacking another Democrat, the likely nominee, by repeatedly saying that the Republican was qualified to be President but the guy who was winning was not qualified.
Despite all this traitorous behavior, Clinton will not win the nomination, and she's known this since February. So why has she, with the help of the right-wing media, worked so hard to bloody up the Democratic candidate? (Hint: look at the the sources of those 109 million dollars in the Clintons' joint account.)
I care about winning in November too. Obama is a fine candidate, a great speaker. He'll do fine once he isn't being attacked by Clinton.
Posted by Bob In Pacifica at May 21, 2008 08:19 PMWow, this has been entertaining....pass the popcorn.
Posted by peter at May 21, 2008 08:20 PMFlorida moved it's primary to Jan 29, 2008 ">in early May of 2007...
In late August of 2007, the DNC declared the penalty of 100% loss of voting rights
The Democratic National Committee took steps today to punish Florida Democrats for deciding to hold the state’s party primary on Jan. 29, 2008 — a week before the first date allowable under D.N.C. rules.
The Rules and Bylaws Committee of the D.N.C. voted to strip Florida of all of its delegates at the party’s national convention next summer.
If you read to the bottom of that article Donna Brazile, an Obama Supporter, is quoted. It is believed that she lobbied the rest of the committee for the 100% penalty.
And here's a poll taken in early August of 2007. Clinton leads Obama in FL by 30 points in Florida.
So. At the time the penalty was decided for Florida, it was known that this penalty would harm Clinton and help Obama.
This wasn't following the rules, this was a thumb on the scales. and if Obama wins because of it. It will be Illigitimate
He can still fix this, however, by calling NOW for the full delegation from FL to be seated.
Posted by Tejota at May 21, 2008 09:30 PMbarbara,
the problem with the always problematic pelosi is that no one can win with pledged delegates. i realize this is very difficult to comprehend, but that's how the system works. and the rules, as written, allow the superdelegates to pick whomever they want, based on whatever criteria they want. that's the real metric. by the rules.
Posted by Turkana at May 21, 2008 10:14 PMI think Hillary should keep running, even when the primaries are over. Even when the convention is over and Obama is the selected candidate.
Hillary should just keep running. And when Obama or McCain takes the oath in 2009, Hillary shouldn't stop campaigning. Just keep going state to state, saying that "I'm not giving up!"
Posted by Muck at May 21, 2008 10:15 PMjoe b,
yes- i'm using rcp's count, with florida and the caucus states included, and michigan excluded.
Posted by Turkana at May 21, 2008 10:20 PMbob,
the one who looks silly is the one who apparently doesn't understand the rules, the one who apparently doesn't realize that they were changed, after the fact, the one who apparently doesn't care what happens to florida in november. have a fired up summer, because we may or may not be ready to go in december.
Posted by Turkana at May 21, 2008 10:22 PMJust a little lullaby to Baglet, Merkle, Petey, Muck and Prabata
HOME COOKIN' Y'ALL
Goodnight!!
Posted by Goyo at May 21, 2008 10:52 PMTurkana,
I appreciate your comment about the supers, but they are delegates, so it's is irrelevant to the issue.
It is delegate count that matters. It's what has always mattered.
I'm curious as to whether, if Obama were to cede to Hillary's demand for MI and FL on her terms and she still comes up short, what makes you think Hillary wouldn't pivot once more, and go back to one of her previous arguments, say, the electoral math?
Frankly, she's making a mockery of the whole process. Whatever way I win is the only way that counts.
It is offensive. Particularly this MI and FL vote thing, when it was her group that insisted on totally stripping them of their delegates. The lone dissenter was an Obama supporter.
Posted by Barbara at May 22, 2008 04:48 AM"...And here's a poll taken in early August of 2007. Clinton leads Obama in FL by 30 points in Florida.
So. At the time the penalty was decided for Florida, it was known that this penalty would harm Clinton and help Obama...."
yeah, a poll in August 2007 is predictive of a primary to be held on 1/29/08 because god knows nothing will change over 4 months (ask President Dewey)
Posted by Gay Veteran at May 22, 2008 05:23 AMGood morning. Late start today? Where's the open thread?
Posted by CG at May 22, 2008 05:24 AMNews Flash...
On NPR's "All Things Considered" last night, they had a news segment with one of Obama's inner circle, and they discussed the May 31st meetings.
David Axelrod did say that it was likely that Obama was going to have to compromise and give up delegates and I think some of his demands in regards to the Florida and Michigan delegations.
Here is a URL link to the news story.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90694373
Excerpt:
"....
Obama's chief strategist, David Axelrod, tells Michele Norris the campaign is "committed" to seating the delegates of Florida and Michigan.
"We are open to compromise. We're willing to go more than halfway," he says. "I guess the question is: Is Senator Clinton's campaign willing to do the same?"
He tells Norris the campaign is willing to make sacrifices such as yielding more delegates.
"Senator Obama feels strongly about this that Florida and Michigan will be fully represented at the convention."
...."
Also:
Obama is attempting to seek a compromise on seating Florida delegates.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90374724
I think what is happening is that there is acknowledgement that Hillary is going to gain after the May 31st talks.
Both states will be seated.
Posted by Troubled American at May 22, 2008 06:09 AMHillary agreed to the rules when she was ahead, now that she's behind she wants to break them.
Posted by T2 at May 22, 2008 06:16 AMTurkana
you don't get to frame the "rules". The popular vote is not a valid rule.emm as far as I know. Do you have a copy of the DNC party rules for the primary?
Now one could argue that the rules as they are today should be changed for a variety of reasons. For instance Hillaryland doesn't like the caucus system, they also don't like certain States. By the way in October 2007 Hillary John Edwards and Barrack Obama ageed and signed on to the punishment of Michagan and Florida. See NYTimes Headline. The rules commitee appproved this punishment with 13 Hillary supporters on the commitee the only no vote was an Obama supporter in Florida who is on the commitee.
Do we want a president who lies about facts? There are videos of Hillary Clinton endorsing the entire rules changes.
We have had eight years of lies we need a change.
Yesterday was a sad day for Hillary Clinton lying to a group of senior citizens and scaring them about their right to vote.
Troubled American,
He can give up a healthy handful of delegates and he would still be too far ahead for Hillary to catch him.
And Jesus, passing on that Sinclair gossip is, well, funny if it wasn't so damn absurd. You spend far too much time over at Hillaryis44.com to be taken seriously with that silly story. By the way, didn't that crazy turd fail a lie detector test?:
http://www.whitehouse.com/NewsComments.aspx?start=&NewsID=116#comments
And finally for all of you who whine incessantly about Florida and Michigan, please try and be more consistent than your favorite, disingenuous candidate:
http://www.slate.com/id/2188985/
I will also give you with an excerpt from McAuliffe's book:
"I'm going outside the primary window," [Michigan Sen. Carl Levin] told me definitively.Posted by MisterOpus1 at May 22, 2008 07:22 AM"If I allow you to do that, the whole system collapses," I [McAuliffe] said. "We will have chaos. I let you make your case to the DNC, and we voted unanimously and you lost."He kept insisting that they were going to move up Michigan on their own, even though if they did that, they would lose half their delegates. By that point Carl and I were leaning toward each other over a table in the middle of the room, shouting and dropping the occasional expletive."You won't deny us seats at the convention," he said."Carl, take it to the bank," I said. "They will not get a credential. The closest they'll get to Boston will be watching it on television. I will not let you break this entire nominating process for one state. The rules are the rules. If you want to call my bluff, Carl, you go ahead and do it."We glared at each other some more, but there was nothing much left to say. I was holding all the cards and Levin knew it.[Source: McAuliffe, Terry. What A Party!, p. 325.]So enough already. YOUR candidate and her supporters pushed hard to make sure Florida and Michigan did not seat the delegates, and it was only through the height of their own arrogance of believing that the nomination of Hillary was locked up that they did so. Only when they realized how wrong they were and how competitive Obama's campaign truly was did they start making attempts at historical revisionism and hoping their followers would fall for their bullshit propaganda, which unfortunately a good portion of Hillary supporters have hook line and sinker.
Hillary and McAuliffe pushed to have the delegates for Florida and Michigan unseated, PERIOD. It's truly beyond high levels of hypocrisy to see their audacity to cry "FOUL!" now once they're behind and hope that no one notices how hard their campaign pushed in favor of unseating the delegates for these two states.
So I want all of you Hillary supporters to acknowledge how wrong Hillary was in supporting the DNC back then when they unseated the delegates of FL and MI, and then I want you to give me a link of Hillary or any of her top advisors admitting as such (with or without an apology), before any of you make an attempt to push the bullshit line of how unfair this all is for her. Anything shy of that is plain hypocritical.
(h/t to diarist at DKos http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/5/22/0226/35614/632/520082)
"It's clear, this election [Michigan is] having is not going to count for anything." words from the mouth of Hillary Clinton, as reported by Associated Press, October, 2007. EIther she was lying then, or lying now.
Posted by T2 at May 22, 2008 07:32 AMFrom the moment the faux primaries had occurred the Clinton team encouraged the state parties not to seek a compromise or arrange for another primary vote which would count. The states followed her encouragement and held firm.
So, Hillary true believers, hold firm. It works so well in the face of reality.
Posted by Bob In Pacifica at May 22, 2008 07:58 AMAll right, Bob in Pacifica, this time you have crossed the line.
Space aliens did visit Hillary and Bill Clinton in the White House, and you know as well as I do that Senator Clinton feel deeply in love with and had a torrid affair with P'lod.
Come on. Be fair, please.
Posted by at May 22, 2008 08:09 AMIf you want to change it, get involved year in and year out like some of us do, and not just in that year your candidate is injured by the rules they agreed to.
Well, that certainly gets to the crux of the problem. A bunch of disengaged Dems who aren't active enough in the process to know the rules or make a peep about the rules before the primaries begin and only come around when their chosen candidate lost. I'll be damned! Every single time I hear "The rules ain't fair!" I know I've got someone in front of me who knows nothing about the Dem process and who is engaged in the election at the most shallow of levels. They are bumper sticker supporters. No substance beyond a slogan.
Posted by phidipides at May 22, 2008 09:12 AMBlah, blah, blah
...But the Rulzzz!!!
Nominee is chosen by delegates. Not a singe mention of "Popular Vote." PDF
Non-Binding Presidential Preference Event is Meaningless PDF
"Non-binding presidential preference event" includes beauty contest primaries and straw polls. PDF
(Beauty contest primaries include those in WA and NE, where all of the delegates are chosen in caucuses and the meaningless primaries in FL & MI; see appendix B.)
I am so surprised that with all of the screaming about the rulz - not a one referenced the actual rules. Interesting.
Posted by Anjha at May 22, 2008 10:06 AMObama was not on the ballot, and the uncommitteds cannot be presumed to all be his, or to all not be his
According to exit polls, 35% of the Michigan voters would've voted for Obama if he'd been on the ballot, compared to 46% for Clinton.
Posted by croatoan at May 22, 2008 10:45 AManja,
conveniently avoiding the facts. chosen by the delegates, yes. which includes the superdelegates. who will make the difference, because the pledged delegates can't. lor else the rules wouldn't include superdelegates at all. but keep spinning.
Posted by Turkana at May 22, 2008 10:52 AMforsyth,
and you don't get to make up facts. since there are literally no rules about how the superdelegates must vote, they can base their votes on anything. once it became clear that neither candidate would win with pledged delegates, it became a question of who could convince the superdelegates. based on whatever arguments they wanted to put forward. and please show me where clinton said she agreed that florida and michigan shouldn't count at all. she agreed not to campaign in those states- and she didn't- but where did she say they should be completely excluded?
Posted by Turkana at May 22, 2008 10:56 AMt2,
please show me which rule clinton is trying to break. thanks.
Posted by Turkana at May 22, 2008 10:58 AMbarbara,
your assertion is absurd. where did hillary support stripping the states of all their delegates? was donna brazile working for hillary?
Posted by Turkana at May 22, 2008 11:01 AMOk Turk, lets get literal. She entered into an agreement with all the other candidates to abide by a decision of the DNC whereby FL and MI would lose their delegates if they held their primary too early. Now she wants to back out of that decision. Literally, you are right, it wasn't a rule she broke....it was her word.
Posted by T2 at May 22, 2008 12:48 PMTurkana,
Please look at RCP numbers again. If you don't include MI and you include the caucus states and FL, then Obama still has the lead in the popular vote.
Posted by Joe B at May 22, 2008 03:28 PMTurkana,
Disregard my last post. I apologize. I didn't realize you were saying Clinton might take the lead rather than already has the lead. Sorry again.
Posted by joe B at May 22, 2008 05:58 PM50% + 1. The most delegates over certain number wins.
Superdelegates are unpledged delegates, yet, delegates still... as opposed to pledged delegates, who are delegates as well.
Pretty simple concept.
Looks like Obama will end up with 50% + 1, which means the most DELEGATES!
Posted by Seven of Six at May 22, 2008 07:01 PMTurkana
sorry for this late reply to your good questions, The rules I`refer to authorized by the Rules Commitee do not include any reference to the "popular vote" Framing the rules on that issue is not appropriate, Second in October 2007 Hillary,John Edwards and Obama agreed to and signed onto no campaign in Fl and Michagan since both states had defied the Democratic Party Rules. google NY Times and Florida and michigan rules, for October 2007 you will find the story with appropriate headline.
MOreover, Biden Richardson and Dodd along with Edwards and Obama had their names removed from the Ballot since the state primary was not going to count.
Imagine in a football game, second quarter rules change because I don't like how this is turning out, This scenerio is simple not complicated Clinton keeps waving the sheet around because she needs the oxygen for her campaign. Do we need another president like this?Hillary voted for the Iraq War and for the Kyl Liberman bomb Iran and thats why she is not going to win, everthing else is noise.
Seven of Six, except the standard isn't the "most" delegates, there's a specific number that must be reached.
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 22, 2008 07:23 PMrm forsyth, in reference to the kyl-liberman bill, what was Obama's vote on that?
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 22, 2008 07:28 PMrm forsyth, in reference to the kyl-liberman bill, what was Obama's vote on that?
I'm guessing: "Present"?
Posted by Sharon at May 23, 2008 06:16 AMRedux and Sharon
Narrowing the discussion to what Obama's vote on Kyl Liberman was is exactly making the argument that the Rules cannot be discussed with Clinton supporters in a fact based manner. Comme on taking that one part of a statement is the dog ate the homework silly stuff. Hllary voted for this god awfull war I watched her do it that day in complete shock!!!!! The anti war progressive democrats have never forgive that vote.
Everytime someone calls Obama a Muslim, inexperienced, self obsessed, too young,unpatriotic blah blah blah I think of Hillary's vote, its a no brainer, not only did she vote the wrong way she touted the policy.
How many dead young men??????? how many dismembered and wounded?????? Attention must be paid. sheesh
Bob in Pacifica wrote:
Stop beating a dead horse. It's over. Get on the bus.I wonder if Bob and I were reading the same post. What I thought I saw Turkana doing was very quietly and reasonably convincing herself to get on the bus. This Obama supporter both appreciates it, and agrees with her that if Hillary's arguments vis a vis the "popular vote" persuaded the superdelegates, her nomination would also be according to the rules and perfectly legitimate. This isn't a sporting event, in which some precise rule settles close games. It's politics, and it's messy. What we have on our hands is a virtual tie, and the only "rule" for settling such very close games is that the refs get to call it as they see it.
Turkana made it clear that she knows the supers will not be persuaded, so the latter point is moot. How about us Obama-ites start being gracious enough to take yes for an answer?
Posted by nicteis at May 23, 2008 07:59 PM