Am I really supposed to believe that if the positions were reversed, the Obama campaign would hold the same position? The fact that the Obama people have obstructed and obfuscated at every step of the process proves my point.
Oh, I forgot. Hillary Clinton is the one who will do “anything to win, even if it destroys the party“:
More than three out of four Florida Democrats say it’s “very important” that Florida’s delegates count toward the nomination, and one in four said they would be less likely to support the ultimate Democratic nominee if Florida’s delegates don’t count.
And if the positions were reversed, would Hillary hold her current position, or would she do the same thing?
I don’t pretend Clinton isn’t a politician. Obama supporters, on the other hand, seem to think the man is above such things.
Let me get this straight: the process begins, two states break the Democratic party’s rules, the party punishes them by refusing to seat their delegates, the candidates agree to this, then Sen Clinton surprisingly finds herself losing in a close race and suddenly reneges on her original agreement and starts prattling on about the value of every vote. And this reflects negatively on Obama how?
Oh, and I second MrSnrubs take.
rules are rules, and that is the easiest fallback position when one is in such a conflict.
and clinton is on record as saying she supported the DNC decision vis a vis the punishment for moving up primaries, she even said michigan didn’t count.
–but then she campaigned in florida anyway and just happened to be the only name on the michigan ballot.
no one really thinks this guy is the messiah, that seems to be something that has stuck in your craw because your preferred candidate has gotten her ass kicked all over the country when she–and you? expected a coronation.
all politicians have baggage–even obama.
all politicians–like almost all people–act out of self interest.
there, I said it, can you move on now?
but, that still does not change the fact that rules were established and penalties advocated and imposed.
to change the rules after the fact now serves no real purpose other than to give HRC yet another chance to overturn the will of the voters/states that followed the rules and gave the majority of votes, delegates, and states to obama.
one cannot escape the conclusion that you, like the people in florida you cite, are desperately seeking some rationale for refusing to support the dem nominee if that person happens to be obama.
I hope sincerely that this is not the case, but since you have never stated that you will support the nominee no matter whom it may be, I cannot help but wonder if you are just building a case for your eventual decision to sit out the election based on excuses.
The thing that’s really interesting about some progressive blog readers is their insistence on ignoring basic political realities. They’re very literal. It’s like talking to someone who just learned the basics about how basketball is played, and is throwing a fit every time the ref doesn’t call a foul. “Omigod, can you BELIEVE that? Omigod! This game is SO fixed!”
In other words, they just don’t understand how the game is REALLY played. Games, as we should know by now, are played on many levels.
I covered election hearings for almost two decades. The overriding principle of election cases is “Always err on the side of counting the votes.” ALWAYS. It’s a good principle, one I approve of. To accept it, I had to let go of my innate literalism about following rules and embrace the higher concept.
That’s why I was stunned when the court rulings handed the 2000 election to Bush - because I’d never seen an election court rule like that. Ever.
I suspect Dean will find some way to both save face - and count those delegates. It’s not just the voters who want to be heard - it’s simply not politically feasible to tell all those Democratic Florida party and elected officials they’ll have no say at the convention, because they’re not going to work that hard if they don’t, and we can’t win without Florida.
I can’t believe Dean will let that happen. It’s his job to keep it from happening.
And by the way, Clinton was never, and is not now, my preferred candidate. And I’m just a little tired of people who seem to think they can bully me rhetorically, and that my not replying to their every comment in detail somehow validates their silly point. (I’ve dated lawyers, it’s a very similar dynamic. That’s why I found them so boring.)
I’m a pretty pragmatic guy. Although I am no fan of Clintonism, if she were as far ahead as Obama and he was trying to change the rules, I would be just as outraged. I would think he was cheating, just as I think Clinton is cheating now.
“Ref, didn’t you see that foul? Omigod!”
I don’t pretend Clinton isn’t a politician. Obama supporters, on the other hand, seem to think the man is above such things.
who are these mythical obama supporters who don’t believe he is a politician? as i’ve said numerous times, i’ve been to obama rallies and spoken to people about obama’s pandering in certain situations.
i keep getting the impression that susie’s entire jihad against obama is based on nothing but a largely empty stereotype about what obama and his supporters are like. if find it to be incredibly bizarre.
the big problem with FL and MI is that once you rule out a re-run no matter what happens one side or the other will view it as illegitimate. if the delegates are seated, then they’re changing the rules mid-game. if they’re not seated, or if you split the delegates 50-50 you’re disenfranchising voters. both concerns, i think, are completely legitimate. it really is sad to see the democratic party split when both of those options, i think, are objectively awful. the only good way out is a re-run or a concession before the convention. neither seem to be in the cards, which means the democratic party will once again eat itself alive and kills its chances in the general over this stupid fight.
the more I see of Obama, the less I like him.
Susan: *shrug*
He has some qualities and positions I don’t like, and some I do.
Same for Clinton.
Same for McCain (though I have fewer things in common with him).
Name your poison. Pick the best from bad choices.
Being a Michigan voter who is really quite irritated with the fools who messed with our primary and created this horse manure pile of a mess to begin with, I plan on evicting them and replacing them.
The responsibility lies with, in Michigan’s case, the short sighted foolish local Dems. They had a problem with the media and screwed the voters. Not the type of democrats that are about long term and need to be replaced.
Clinton and Obama are both caught between a rock and hard place. Those who did vote want their vote to be counted and will be pissed if they are not. Those who were ripped off in their choices are equally as pissed. Who’s at fault? Local Michigan Dems. They decided the rules did not apply them. It is not like they did not know the consequences. The consequences are a big heaping pile of horseshit. Who got screwed? The voters.
A re-vote causes problems. Seating the delegates causes problems. Not seating the delegates causes problems. The responsibility lies with Michigan local Dems. That should not be shifted to Clinton nor Obama.
What I’m not seeing in this argument is pragmatism. We all want a Democrat in the white house. The primary system is ultimately about choosing the Democrat with the best chance of beating John McSame. Yes, everything we know about every candidate goes into making that choice: who looks presidential, who looks electable, who looks sincere and principled, who has the best white papers, who has the most markers from legislators (s)he’ll have to work with, who has the best coattails to bring in more legislators with (D) after their names…
But at the end of the day, it looks to me like Barack Obama is bringing in enough new voters to the table that he has the best shot at it. And he did it in the face of massive institutional advantages HRC had at the beginning of the campaign, which I think proves he’s the better campaigner. Yes, I can see where some of his tactical decisions look opportunistic and sleazy to an HRC partisan. But I can also see where some of Clinton’s actions and statements not only might look just as bad to the BMO camp, but where they could be seen as damaging to the Democratic party “brand” as a whole, like saying she and McCain had passed the Commander in Chief test and Obama hadn’t.
Is the foregoing just a rant about a foul the ref didn’t notice? I hope it’s a reminder that the idea is to get the ball in the basket.
Susie: Thanks for your patronizing lecture where party primaries (in which you have no constitutional right to vote) are compared to national elections (which get a mention or two in the constitution) and basketball games. Sorry for being so literal, but really now if the candidates sign agreements saying they will abide by the decision to not seat the delegates and then change their minds when they find out said delegates might get them closer to the nomination I find it unethical. If Sen. Clinton is so damned devoted to counting every vote why did she agree to the bar in the first place? She agreed back when she thought Obama was a paper tiger about to die. Oops - bad call Senetor. Now suddenly she realizes the vital importance of counting every vote. You’re so right. Obama supporters are the blind followers who will go along with anything their candidate does while Clinton supportes are the gritty realists.
“Games, as we should know by now, are played on many levels.”
Basketball is a game; politics determines what kind of society we live in. I don’t give a shit if the ref lets Kobe Bryant get away fouls. I do give a shit if unethcial politicians try to change the rules in the middle of a campaign - especially after having signed an agreement to follow the rules.
You don’t think branding Clinton as a “racist” who will “burn the party to the ground to get elected” was damaging to the Democratic brand?
I am focused on seeing that Clinton is judged fairly, by the same standards as Obama. I’m just not seeing it.
I’m with Snuzy. I’d love to meet one of these famous Obama supporters who don’t realize that the dude running for President is a politician. Sure, everybody loves to huff a little glue from time to time, but the illogic you’re describing would require the sort of longterm oxygen deprivation I’d typically associate with a true glue junkie who’s huffing 10 tubes of the stuff a day.
Anyway, I think revoke is crucial. Any candidate running for President of the United States should be fighting like mad to get every vote counted, even if it’s a strategically stupid thing to do. I remember screaming from the rooftops in 2000 about the insanity of a presidential candidate suing to stop a vote count. As an Obama supporter, I’d really like to see his campaign cut the crap and take a leadership role on this. Not that I’ll hold my breath.
You don’t think branding Clinton as a “racist” who will “burn the party to the ground to get elected” was damaging to the Democratic brand?
absolutely. but as i said before, branding obama as a sexist, trashing his legislative record, and belittling his opposition to the war is also damaging to the democratic brand.
I am focused on seeing that Clinton is judged fairly, by the same standards as Obama. I’m just not seeing it
do we really want all democratic candidates to be treated as badly as clinton is by the press? it seems like the goal should be to get clinton better treatment, to call out unfair attacks when they happen rather than to try to stir up an equal number of unfair attacks against obama. yes, clinton is treated terribly. but its stupid to wish that same sort of treatment on the other democratic candidate. once again, it can only damage the democratic brand. after all, mccain never gets any of this shit.
Bob, I absolutely understand the distinction and I wasn’t trying to make a legal point. The ideal solution would be a revote and that would be within the rules.
Wow! My comments are disappearing faster than Sen. Clinton’s lead going into the primary process. I write in, disagree but do so in a principled manner only to find the comments (including one totally innocuous one on a different post) gone. That’s downright Clintonian of you.
Bullshit indeed.
I was thinking the other day about how marijuana arrests rose constantly during the Clinton years because he needed to be free to pursue his “agenda”.
And what was that agenda? Ending ‘welfare as we know it’. De-regulating the finance industry. Bombing Iraq and Serbia. Balancing the budget. NAFTA, but without enforcement of environmental or labor provisions of the treaty. Did you feel the love?
Now, Suzie may go back and forth between “politics is political” and “simply don’t like Obama” (because he’s a politician?) but when I watch Clinton run on her surprisingly patchy ‘record’, I’m not having much trouble making up my mind.
The Clintons did nothing about the drug laws that ultimately led to defeat in Florida after tens of thousands of black voters were stricken from the rolls because of “felonies”. Or was it a spineless DLC that folded like a wet paper towel? Whatever.
Clinton will have more than a fair chance of having superdelegates take account of Michigan and Florida. If she wins without changing the rules, I’m one of the party faithful- but it’s not because of Clinton, it’s because of local legislators who put their money where their mouth is. Something the Clintons, IMHO, have notably failed to do.
Bob, your comments were “retro-spanked” by spam karma. Some comment you made recently got flagged by the software as spam, so everything else you’ve written got spanked as well. It’s a completely automated process.
Chris & Susie:
Thank you for the explanation. I apologize for having spouted off (comment 18) before giving you a chance to explain.
Bob
Over eager spam filters are just another reason to love spam. Susie and I spend many a leisurely afternoon discussing the finer points of spam, spambots, spambots who crash web servers, spam filters and more spam. Since we’re on the topic, click on my name for awesome deals on Viagra, cured and potted meats, and Porn!!!
now this argument of “if the situation was reversed” is actually my fav game to play. But if you REALLY want to play it you have to be willing to play it in EVERY circumstance…
Shoe on other foot game:
HRC is ahead and cannot be either tied or supassed in primary wins, popular vote and delegate count but OB (or any other opponent) decides to keep on campaigning.
Do you actually believe for ONE second that hrc and co would not be seizuring on a daily basis on how OB is destroying the party, giving comfort to the enemy (sound bites and talking points for the GOP in the GE), and otherwise on a narcissitic venture shadowing even that of bill clinton???
Easy… FUCK NO!
Now pretend OB stated more than once that HRC lack something (for. pol experience, yada yada) and did not meet the CINC threshold like the likely GOP nominee…and pretend OB or his wife going on Rushs radio show spewing why OB is the better choice…
HRC and co likely reaction? head’s spinning in full circles, speaking in tongues, bill likely biting bottom lip clean off!
And something very easy to imagine: HRC personally PLEAING For DLC, SuperD’s, house and senate leadership to step in, etc…
Which we (to my knowledge) have not seen ONE time from OB currently.
So, if you want to play “reverse situation” game then lets start with the above. Once you accept reality (not a common trait) that hrc would not be reacting like OB and co currently are then you lose this game every time!!
14 Susie
You don’t think branding Clinton as a “racist” who will “burn the party to the ground to get elected” was damaging to the Democratic brand?
I am focused on seeing that Clinton is judged fairly, by the same standards as Obama. I’m just not seeing it.
—————————————————————-
OB did not say this - a supporter did. BIG difference.
HRC on the other hand has PERSONALLY said things that damage the dem brand, the dem chances in the GE, directly boost the electibility of the GOP nominee, and even as important destroy her reputation. Not that that makes any difference to a clinton.
This thread makes my head spin.
I think they should both shut up before any further
damage is done, and let me flip a coin to see who
the nominee will be.
Both of them should be competing on the basis of how they would undo the immense damage that the Rethugs and Neocons and Corporatists and Anti-Constitutionalists have wreaked. Obama has linked the war to the imploding economy — that’s a start. But we need tons more from both sides. And no more “reaching across the aisle” collaborationist talk from Obama — Rethugs are not going to vote for him anyway.