onegoodmove

That wasn't a Hillary Clinton interview on Fox - that was a hostage negotiation.

As far as I know Obama's camp has not opposed the revotes in Florida and Michigan in general. The only proposal that was floated in Florida was a mail-in vote, and it wasn't the Obama people that killed that idea. After that idea was shot down they learned that there was no time to set up anything else. In Michigan I hadn't heard that Obama's camp had categorically opposed a revote. Is this true?

I think Obama does have something to lose. If Michigan isn't voting until June, Hillary has one more excuse to stay in the race until then. She'll be able to argue to the superdelegates that they shouldn't make up their minds until after that point. She'll still have no chance but a re-vote in Michigan extends the nomination contest and damages his general election chances. It is in a sense the right thing to seat those delegates, but I also hate that a single state can hold the whole party hostage.

For some reason, no one is asking Hillary in any of these interviews why she said before Michigan that she was keeping her name on the ballot because "those votes are not going to count for anything", but now she demands that they absolutely must count for something. She may have a principle on her side, but she's only invoking it when it's helping her. There's also another principle, which everyone is forgetting, that individual state parties (and the state legislatures, which include Republicans) should not be able to screw around with the process by unilaterally moving the dates of pirmaries.

There are two ways to seat the delegates now. There is not time for a re-vote. You seat the delegates after Obama has secured enough delegates and Hillary has dropped out. Or you seat them and leave them unpledged. Let them vote how they want. This second option may increase the chaos, but at least it leaves some punishment against these states in place--they will not be able to affect the nomination by unilaterally moving the date of their contest.

Both candidates are seriously damaged now and will need to climb out of the hole that they're in, but Hillary will never climb out of it. By the time she's through her approval ratings will be in Cheney territory.

First, you rquirements for signing up and logging in are too involved to allow for much free speech.

As far as Billary goes, if you make an agreement you should stand by it. A leader would know that, and not let dirty tricksters have their way. That's why the US in such a pickle now.

We know that with McCain and Billary we'll get more of the same pain. We do not know that with Obama, and at least we'd be free of the Bush-Clinton gangs that dug the US in deep.

The world's problems are far too serious to go back to groups that we know will fail.

As far as I know Obama's camp has not opposed the revotes in Florida and Michigan in general. The only proposal that was floated in Florida was a mail-in vote, and it wasn't the Obama people that killed that idea. After that idea was shot down they learned that there was no time to set up anything else. In Michigan I hadn't heard that Obama's camp had categorically opposed a revote. Is this true?

You're right about Florida, but for some reason I got the impression that the Michigan vote was going forward, but that Obama opposed it because it would be financed by supporters of Clinton. If anyone has anything definitive on the question feel free to chime in.

Link

If I can be blunt, the tactics that Hillary is using to win are the exact tactics that are costing her the election.

People see that she is a 'bitch' who will do ANYTHING to secure her power.

Think about that.

She and Obama used to sit, smile and chat, and now she is destroying not only him, but the chances of a Democratic victory simply because people don't want her anymore.

Does anyone have updated poles on "I am for Obama but would vote for Hillary". My guess is those numbers are dropping fast. How sad.

I am REALLY mad at her for this. After all we have been through with one self-entitled, self-elected (no matter what the voters said), win at any cost President, punish those that get in your way, we have another one in the making.

Farking unbelievable.

things-that-only-true-obamaphiles-can-believe

everytime-an-obamaphile-sings-wwtsbq-an-angel-gets-his-wings

Nice link, Inwit,

"Things Only True Obamaphiles Believe' is a treasure trove of unhinged, schizophrenic hilarity - and is a fitting tribute to their candidate!

My favourite seems to say more about themselves than it does Obamaphiliacs:

Obama’s PhD swimsuit model supporters will never grow older or cease to be attractive, respected and desired by middle aged male Obama supporters. And someday they will all vote for a woman for president, just not “this one.”

I didnt watch the video yet because im getting to the point where I dont care who wins anymore, but it looks like both of these idiotic democrats want to give away the election again. The only way mccain can win is if the election is decided on petty meaningless issues. And if american voters arent (gulp) ignorant they sure are petty. But I like how that line, "And someday they will all vote for a woman for president, just not “this one.” is somehow supposed to guilt trip you into voting for hillary just because she is a woman. Well why not vote for barack just because he is a half black guy? just not "this one" i guess, right?

But the democrats give the republicans all the ammo they need practically, Hillary claiming to be under sniper fire, meanwhile it's on camera that was a lie and obama goes to a crazy church. (which I guess is different from the crazy churches republicans go to because they blame the government for evils and not gays.)

http://www.observer.com/2008/obama-lawyer-questions-michigan-re-vote-plan

The article in the link explains some of the concerns raised by the Obama lawyer regarding the Michigan revote.

Fromt the article: "...the memo is a lengthy, dense appeal that lists numerous reasons why a new Michigan primary might be open to legal challenge: the short time that the state has to prepare, the risk of disenfranchisement because of party affiliation, and the problem of where the funding will come from, among others."

However, the nail in the coffin was a statement by the Michigan sec of state office that basically said that the logistics of a re-vote would seriously screw up other elections already planned for before and after the proposed re-vote date.

I think an issue not adequately reported is that if Michigan gets to re-vote, then it begs the question of what to do about Florida. Florida had already given up on a revote, and it would just increase pressure for their flawed primary to somehow be counted anyway.

Politically, Obama had little reason to block a Michigan re-vote as he would have fared quite strongly against Clinton, and likely even won. Despite Hillary being the only Democrat on the ballot, she only garnered a 55% vote! About 40% voted "uncommitted" which is astonishingly strong given all the factors that would encourage people to stay home. A registered Michigan voter, I personally stayed home even though I'm a strong supporter of Obama.

I do agree the re-vote is not fair because it would prohibit those who already voted from participating. I know a lot of people who would have voted for Obama, but decided to participate in the Republican primary because that was the only meaningful contest.

The key story here is NOT how Obama is blocking the democratic process, but rather how:

• Hillary kept her name on the ballot despite everyone else pulling out.
• How she claimed at the time it didn't matter that she was on the ballot since "it was clear the vote wasn't going to matter anyway" (right)
• How she claimed "victory" afterward (Sound much like elections in Russia?)
• How she's consistently listed Michigan among the states she's "won"
• How she's used the whole situation as a foil against Obama, who was simply playing by the rules.

Hillary's disregard for the rule of law (she made an appearance in Florida despite agreement against campaigning there), her blatant hypocrisy, and propensity to twist issues into character assassinations have transformed her from someone I liked (at the beginning of the process) to someone I despise as much as Karl Rove.

Norm, the link you rpvide also caontains this quote which dispute your claim:

But Michigan state Sen. Tupac Hunter, a major Obama supporter, says an “overwhelming majority” of members who support both candidates “find something or the other wrong with it and cannot support it in its current form. A new vote, he added, “does not look likely.”

“From where I sit there are no floating pieces to this,” said Hunter — nothing that can be changed that wouldn’t require a major alteration or abandonment of the current proposal. “I’m not sure how feasible it is at this point… there’s nothing I’ve seen or heard that would lead me to believe that there’s going to be an agreement.”

He called on the DNC Chairman Howard Dean to step in immediately and broker a compromise, to help avoid a “chaotic convention.”

“There’s a lot of hot rhetoric out there. Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton, they’re in the throes of a campaign, we understand that,” he said. “But the DNC needs to come in and calm the storm.”

So, to sum it up: Obama wants the DNC to set the rules for Michigan and Florida; Clinton wants the states counted despite their primaries being done in violation of stated DNC rules.

I think MerryOtter's last bullet point is perhaps the most salient. The MI/FL primary mess has been totally FUBAR from the start and is practically and logistically an unsalvageable situation. Hillary is just exploiting the issue to make Obama appear to be an undemocratic disenfranchiser of voters, when he was just playing by the rules, like all the other Dem candidates... except her.

Oh, but I guess that's okay cuz "she's a fighter".

The democratic party really messed this up. They set the rules and now it becomes a big issue that will hurt everyone in November. The republicans responded by cutting their delegates in half. Why did these stupid states change their primary? Why did they do it and look what problems they caused. I am surprised as well that Hillary's team did not oppose this decision, she was certainly intending to run at the time?

If Hillary stays till the end, she has to somehow make it look noble, and not divisive. She needs to make it at least appear that she is not attacking Obama. Finally, if Obama's camp just said make Michigan 50/50 and let Florida stand with half the delegates (like the republicans), would it really make much difference in the end?

Regardless of mud being slung, I will vote for both candidates, they are both good candidates. I still cannot but swing Obama, I am still pretty impressed mud and all. To see how foreigners (my local rag) sees his race speech... Basically says that Obama's candidacy, win or not has fundamentally changed things.

http://www.canada.com/theprovince/news/story.html?id=c13dfe1a-e8a5-4276-b523-28223122eebc&k=50702

I live in Singapore and we're "lucky" to have the Foreign Minister make pithy statements on a blog. Case in point on US Democracy:

http://beyondsg.typepad.com/beyondsg/2008/03/us-democracy.html

The money quote:

"But will such a system throw up the best leaders? Watching the race between Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama, a large part of the contest is about crafting speeches and sound bites, and endless spinning of one's position. The system of analysing and targeting voters is extremely sophisticated. Out of the cacophony, the American voter is supposed to be able to sense the core of a candidate and then decide in his own best interest. Ordinary people may not understand all the issues debated but, given enough time, they have the instinct to figure out who is the right man or woman to become President. That at least is the hope."

While the statements have some elements of truth to it. The question he poses in the beginning is the real insult. If he's comparing it to the local Singaporean system where leaders are chosen non-transparently, opaquely and often without people really vetting the candidate its not even a close contest. Give me the American democracy.

By the way the Foreign Minister comes from the ruling party that creatively suppresses the opposition to a point where in Parliament out of a total of 84 seats only 2 don't belong to the ruling party. Our ridiculous rules for electing the Parliament means that despite the people voting 29% for the opposition they only have 2 seats to show for it.

Claiming hillary "won" Michigan is akin to saying Scooter Libby "outed" Mrs. Plame. While technically true, everybody knows it's not the point.

Norm:

You're right about Florida, but for some reason I got the impression that the Michigan vote was going forward, but that Obama opposed it because it would be financed by supporters of Clinton. If anyone has anything definitive on the question feel free to chime in.

The Michigan re-vote was struck down by a judge. It is certainly true that Obama was less then supportive, but at the end of the day it would have required some rewriting of State law to even make it work.

Any agreement would have either allowed people to vote in both the republican and democratic primary or not allowed democrats that voted in the republican primary to vote in their own parties primary.

The source says that Obama’s campaign has been asked to craft an alternative or to meet with the Clinton campaign to work out an acceptable compromise, but that those requests have been met with silence. Obama spokesman Bill Burton disputes this account [...]

Clinton's suggestion that MI and FL simply be seated, based on the votes already cast, is absurd (Obama wasn't even on the ballot in MI, and she herself agreed before the election that the votes wouldn't count). A re-vote is a more complicated issue, and it is not clear what the Obama campaign has been doing. So far as I can tell, they've been dragging their feet, which is indeed worthy of criticism. But it is not clear what specific proposals they're resisting.

Obviously posting links about "Obamaphiles" is counterproductive and not an argument. Can we get above this childish twaddle, pretty please?

When Clinton comes up for Senate re-election in NY, I will be sure not to vote for her.

joe filter: mailinator is a great blessing to get around stupid requirements.

Norm: "more like Hillary"? Shouldn't that be a good thing to you?

FL revote died because they cannot vote for a presidential candidate by mail according to the law. Congress would have to reconviene to fix the law, and absolutely couldn't get their crap together.

MI I'm not sure why it died.

Norm is coming around. Kudos. As a former Bush voter (duck) I understand how painful it can be to admit that a candidate you once supported is a total fraud.

In the meantime, Hillary needs to attack McCain with all the Machiavellian tactics currently reserved for Obama. Credit where credit is due: the Clintons are incredibly talented at damaging political opponents. She needs to leverage this power for the greater good.

As far as Obama goes, I'm not thrilled. I doubt he will attempt to reform the Federal Reserve, which is the root of our current economic recession. He may end the Iraq War, but I doubt he will end the global occupation by the American empire. I also think giving a trillion dollars to the third world, while American taxpayers lose their homes, is nothing short of obscene.

However, of those currently running, he is the only one who escaped a vote for the Iraq War, and the only one willing to make serious criticisms of the Patriot Act. I see in Obama another JFK- an overrated President who is useful as a catalyst of change.

I am a very reluctant Obama supporter, having defaulted to him after watching the inevitable defeat of Paul, Kucinich and Gravel. However, this is a golden opportunity for him to leverage my wishy-washy support in order to prove me wrong.

Also, to be clear: the systematic removal of banking regulations has most certainly contributed to the current system. However, attempting to restore a weak dollar by dumping another 75 billion into circulation reveals a fundamentally flawed system. As Ron Paul once said to Bernake- I fail to see how anyone expects to cure the ills of inflation with more inflation.

Norm is coming around.

Hell No!

I've always known that Hillary is a liar, but better on the issues. I also know what Barack is, a liar, and worse on the issues. I also know that John McCain is a liar, a warmonger, an idiot, and far worse than either Democrat.

If Hillary Clinton cared so much about the votes in Michigan and Florida, why didn't she speak out about this from the beginning? Also, if she cares so much about if people's votes count, then why is she pushing for Superdelegates to overide the popular vote?

Anyway, no matter the Michigan/Florida debacle, the latest poll by the Pew Research Center has Obama ahead of of Clinton. (Obama 49%, Clinton 39%)

As for those Democrats who have an unfavorable opinion of Obama, I don't think that most of them would vote for him no matter what he said or did based upon this statistic:

In particular, white Democrats who hold unfavorable views of Obama are much more likely than those who have favorable opinions of him to say that equal rights for minorities have been pushed too far; they also are more likely to disapprove of interracial dating, and are more concerned about the threat that immigrants may pose to American values. In addition, nearly a quarter of white Democrats (23%) who hold a negative view of Obama believe he is a Muslim.

JoAnn:

If Hillary Clinton cared so much about the votes in Michigan and Florida, why didn't she speak out about this from the beginning?

in the interest of appearing unbiased, perhaps you could ask the same thing of Obama

Also, if she cares so much about if people's votes count, then why is she pushing for Superdelegates to overide the popular vote?

let's see now - are caucuses 'fair' - for the purist- they are not - they do not represent one person - one vote. yet the Obama camp has enjoyed the benefit of caucus votes.

are superdelegates 'fair' - for you, apparently not -

yet both caucuses and superdelegates are part of the nomination process. it's pointless to argue what superdelegates should or should not be allowed do. and just as caucuses are there to 'push' the vote in one direction or another, so to, are superdelegates subject to the same forces.

there is no substance to your argument except to paint Hillary in a negative light. hardly moving the debate forward.

I've always known that Hillary is a liar, but better on the issues. I also know what Barack is, a liar, and worse on the issues. I also know that John McCain is a liar, a warmonger, an idiot, and far worse than either Democrat.

Norm, Hillary as a liar and McCain as a worse liar are givens; but Barack as a liar ?

say it isn't so.

perhaps you have a list or link to cases where Barack has lied.

zdzp: Perhaps you could point to instances of Obama getting all hot and bothered about "OMG Florida disenfranchised!!!"

Also: are dicksize contests fair? For (Sen. Hillary) Clinton, apparently not... Hopefully this helps you see the problem with your argument.

By the way, all of you should check out Daily Kos for a mirror image of the shrill stupidity found here and at mydd...

zdzp

let's see now - are caucuses 'fair' - for the purist- they are not - they do not represent one person - one vote. yet the Obama camp has enjoyed the benefit of caucus votes.

All these votes are votes for delegates. Nobody gets one person, one vote. Not in the primary, not in the general.

It's a fair system in that it treats all candidates equally. Hillary lost them because she lacks the grassroots support amongst activists needed to win.

There is a world of difference between Caucuses and super-delegates.

For instance, this year, Iowa had more participants in its caucus then it usually does in its primary.

Hardly seems like it disenfranchised many people.

Zdzp, Norm:

Let's be real- they're ALL liars- or at the very least, chronic exaggerators. "Politic" comes from the Latin, "to spin bull$#it into votes".

The "liar" issue is a wash, IMO.

Let's keep this discussion focused on the issues.

On which issues has Hillary Clinton shown better judgment that McCain?

I'll get you started- abortion. Take it from there.

username2

zdzp: Perhaps you could point to instances of Obama getting all hot and bothered about "OMG Florida disenfranchised!!!"

hardly worth responding (but only because you used so many exclamation marks!!!):

are you saying that Obama does not care whether Florida is disenfranchised or not?

why is it a problem to ask of Obama the same you are asking of Hillary

zdzp: No, I'm saying I don't care about Florida's "disenfranchisement": they break the rules, they pay the price. I'm also saying that Obama has never made his case for the nomination depend upon FL and MI counting as real contests.

Not that it matters in any case... It's all over but the crying.

PS -- I can do exactly the same thing without exclamation marks if it makes you feel better. But they were inside quotes, so they technically don't count against me in the bang primary...

RedSeven

For instance, this year, Iowa had more participants in its caucus then it usually does in its primary. Hardly seems like it disenfranchised many people.

you miss the point. it's easy to argue that a caucus vote is disenfranchising for those who did vote, yet could not attend the caucuses because of logistical or physical circumstances. think about who makes it to those caucuses? the elderly?, those without transportation?, those at work the evening shift?
I am not saying it should be done any different. I'm just saying it is not one person - one vote

There is a world of difference between Caucuses and super-delegates.

you can think it's a 'world of difference' but it's the system that's been in place . The superdelegates are there for a reason. far be it from me or anyone else to tell superdelegates what criteria they should choose when deciding. - so suck it in - those are the rules. you can't say it's 'less fair' or you can perceive that there is a difference, but there are arguments just as well for why superdelegates have this power.

zdsp:

in the interest of appearing unbiased, perhaps you could ask the same thing of Obama

Well, Obama is not the person who is screaming about Michigan and Florida delegates not "having a voice".

Look, if Hillary Clinton were elected, I'd be perfectly content with that. I just hope that our next president is not John McCain. I'm not one of those Obama supporters who refuses to vote for Hillary Clinton.

As concerns this debate, there are two issues, the rules and what the voters want.

If we just play by the "rules" as set forth by the DNC, then the popular vote doesn not count and the Superdelegates can change the election. Hillary Clinton believes that the Superdelegates are free to elect a candidate who does not have the popular vote, so why should she be so concerned about the Michigan and Florida delegates having a voice?

The Obama camp wants to play by the rules as concerns Michigan and Florida delegates, but they don't believe that we should play by the rules as concerns the superdelegates.

So there's a lot of parsing going on as concerns both camps.

And yes, it's pointless to argue what superdelegates should do, but it is highly unlikely that superdelegates will overthrow which ever candidate wins the popular vote in end.

Honestly, contesting the rules after the fact is kind of cheap. But bad sportsmanship aside, there's a relevant point by MerryOtter here:

"I do agree the re-vote is not fair because it would prohibit those who already voted from participating. I know a lot of people who would have voted for Obama, but decided to participate in the Republican primary because that was the only meaningful contest."

I believe this reason by itself is enough to undermine the legitimacy of a new vote. Unless you allow people (including liberals) who voted in the Republican nomination (to pick a lizard of their choosing) to participate in the Democratic nomination, you're going to hose a substantial block of voters.

In the end, it's pretty undeniable that the blame for this fiasco doesn't belong with Obama... or Clinton. Blame the Michigan Democratic Party for scheduling the primary wrongly in the first place.

The Obama camp wants to play by the rules as concerns Michigan and Florida delegates, but they don't believe that we should play by the rules as concerns the superdelegates.

Wait, so Hillary Clinton wants to overturn the rules by allowing MI and FL vote, when she signed on saying that they should be punished for early voting. But when Obama's camp is suggesting that Supers vote with the people, that's breaking the rules? Isn't it a suggestion? Isn't it a valid suggestion?

They aren't trying to change the rules to say that Superdelegates CANNOT choose who they vote for, are they?

This would be a different conversation if Obama's camp were trying to get rid of the supers or something at this point, but I hardly see the two stances as equal "parsing".

"are you saying that Obama does not care whether Florida is disenfranchised or not?"

Why should he have to make any show of caring about that? It's not really up to him, and he happens to be running for president, not advocating Democratic primary reform. The people in charge of making sure Floridians are enfranchised are the DNC, the Florida State Dems, and the Florida State Legislature. All three kind of screwed this up. Hillary's thankfully concerned, but only because it has some benefit. Not surprisingly, that kind of concern is not going to get them a re-vote. But they will get their delegates, if the Dems can wrap up the contest before the Spring is over.

This credentials committee threat goes no where that I can see. Beyond all the rancor it would cause, it would actually reward the Republican state legislators who voted for the mess. They now know they can royally screw with the other party by messing with primary dates. On Hillary's part, it really is a kind of kamikazee maneuver (thankfulluy Tucker didn't say "suicide bomber").

Maelstrom said:

Blame the Michigan Democratic Party for scheduling the primary wrongly in the first place.

However, the Florida Democrats were subject to the scheduling set forth by the Republicans.

Magnolia:

This would be a different conversation if Obama's camp were trying to get rid of the supers or something at this point, but I hardly see the two stances as equal "parsing".

I don't really think that they're equal either. I'm must attempting to toss a bone to Hillary people. ;)

Anyway, Obama's going to end up with the most pledged delegates unless Hillary Clinton manages to win overwhelmingly in all the rest of the primaries and this is highly unlikely given that the lastest Pew results show Obama way ahead of Clinton.

And if anyone believes that Superdelegates will vote against the candidate ahead in pledged delegates (which pretty much represents the popular vote) and the popular vote...

you can think it's a 'world of difference' but it's the system that's been in place . The superdelegates are there for a reason. far be it from me or anyone else to tell superdelegates what criteria they should choose when deciding. - so suck it in - those are the rules.

Super delegates were created for two reasons.

1. To ensure party leaders got a chance to attend the convention(and party)

2. To override the electorate in the case that they nominate an unelectable candidate.

They were not created to nominate whomever they chose. They should vote an up or down on the winner of the primary based solely on an electability argument.

Thems be the rules. You can suck it up.

JoAnn says:

If we just play by the "rules" as set forth by the DNC, then the popular vote doesn not count and the Superdelegates can change the election.

RedSeven says:

They were not created to nominate whomever they chose.

I'll let you two work it out

I'll let you two work it out

Both statements are actually right. Meditate on it and let me know if you figure it out.

And yes, it's pointless to argue what superdelegates should do

Yes, thank you JoAnn, my point to RedSeven exactly.

Since we're talking about credibility and misstatements, Obama non-issues, and the thread on the topic is a little stale, I wanted to point out that the University of Chicago Law School has just issued a public statement regard the academic title smear to the effect that, indeed, Obama was a professor.

The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer." From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers have high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.

i do not want to belabor this, but the point should be made as to what exactly the 'rules' are regarding superdelegates, because it seems to be an easy target for Hillary-bashing.

Remember, this is politics and Obama as well as Hillary are using the rules (chairing caucuses, sweet-talking superdelegates,etc) to their advantage - these are not ad hominem attacks or intimidation tactics - these are the rules and they are following them.

so for those that are already brainwashed into thinking that superdelegates should vote a certain way:

These superdelegates, then and now, may vote for whomever they want, irrespective of the choices made by voters in their own states. (NPR, http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18914920)

But nothing in the rules binds any of the superdelegates, and they are free to shift positions, unlike pledged delegates who are committed to support a particular candidate at least through an initial convention vote. (NYtimes, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/28/us/politics/28superdelegates.html)

and finally from the esteemed pro-Obama blog (HuffPo):

Do superdelegates have to vote a certain way? Can they change their minds? Superdelegates do not have to pledge to vote a particular way at the convention (although many announce their support for a candidate in advance). Regardless of any stated endorsement, superdelegates can vote however they choose and are free to change their minds.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/13/everything-youve-ever-wan86335.html

OK 'nuff said.

As Democrats, as Americans, one thing we should all be able to agree upon about the last eight years is the rejection of political leadership which is contemptuous of the rule of law. An attitude which allows rules to be twisted, sentences to be commuted, the definitions of torture and terror to be changed in order to serve the momentary and narrow interests of a party or a policy or the naked ambition of a President or a candidate.

Until recently I would have been happy to vote for Any Democrat running against McCain in November. But in threatening an over-the-top convention battle, in going after her opponent's pledged delegates, in carelessly making her own party a laughing stock Hillary Clinton has displayed a corrosive eagerness to pursue her own ambition at the expense of her nation, rules-be-damned, citizens-be-damned, democracy-be-damned, that is reminiscent of the Bush administration's scorn for the Constitution.

I have never voted for a Republican in all my life. If Hillary Clinton is on the ballot in November as a result of these tactics, which she undertakes because she can't win the support of her party at the ballot-box, she will not receive my vote.

fd

I have to agree with FDP. Hillary's campaign tactics of set-up questions at town hall meetings, and even little swipes at Obama ("he's not a Muslim....as far as I know") has exuded a disregard for the rules and arrogance I hope to leave behind when Bush and Co. leave office. However, i don't think I can stomach giving my vote to McCain. At his point, I'm not sure my presidential vote will be FOR someone, just against the other guy.

There's always 3rd party options.

If Obama is the nominee, this will be my first time voting Democrat. Ever! (I've never voted Republican, either)

I am one of the many fierce Independents (Libertarian) that he has so masterfully wooed over to your side. But if Senator Sweet Cheeks is not on the ballot in November, I've got no problem looking elsewhere to cast my vote. And if the Democrats lose, they deserved to.

It is in a sense the right thing to seat those delegates, but I also hate that a single state can hold the whole party hostage.

I disagree with this. It is not the right thing to do. The Florida Democratic Party and Michigan Democratic Party broke the rules in an attempt to be more influential.

But what about democracy and having every vote count? Bull sheit. This is a primary, not a general election. As far as voting for your party members and other business, their vote still counts. But for the presidential nomination, they were disenfranchised by their state party over a year ago. You don't show up to the polls on time, and vote correctly, guess what? Your opinion won't count.

This argument about disenfranchising voters is a direct result of the 2 party system being to well established.
Don't register with the party? Vote in the general. Don't play by the party rules? Vote in the general.
Don't like who the party picks? Start building your own party, then vote in the general. Florida and Michigan are SoL and the Dems need to move on.

You don't show up to the polls on time, and vote correctly, guess what? Your opinion won't count.

small point of order here: the voters did show up to the pools on time. it was the state party that told them when to do so. the voters really had no choice. why do you feel it is necessary to punish them for a mistake the state party made ?

don't get it?

well try this: your mom tells you it's ok to watch tv.

you watch tv

your dad comes home and punishes you for watching tv.

I guess in this dysfunctional family you should feel you deserve every bit of punishment that's coming your way.

your sister tries to intervene but your brother decides it's not worth it and your friends tell you your brother's right and your sister's a b!tch.

how does that make you feel?

Mother was warned in no uncertain terms by Father that there would be consequences if she allowed us to watch TV.

Watching TV uses electricity, and electricity costs money, and there are a lot of family members who are not working.

And, please, spare us the bullshit about sister intervening on our behalf for noble, altruistic reasons. Sister is putting on an act. She didn't give a shit about us until she learned that she would need more votes in her campaign for the presidency.

yes, but you didn't answer the question.

how does that make you feel.

it's about the voters, remember.

I'm a Michigan voter and my anger is directed squarely where it should be: at the state Dems who gambled with the state and lost.

As far as a revote, I am torn.

We are a sizeable state and it takes time (and money that we do not have) to put together an orderly, fair primary. If it could be done properly, I've got no problem with it. But I have serious doubts that it would be anything other than a clusterfuck.

So it's either: clusterfuck or giant gaping wound that haunts the outcome of this election forever.

Perhaps both are an inevitability at this late stage in the game.

....But then I think, wait - aren't we supposed to be a nation of laws and rules?

I feel like an Oprah show audience member by asking the following question, but: Do we not teach our children that rules are to be followed and that there are consequences for breaking the rules?

What kind of message does it send to change rules that EVERBODY AGREED TO after the game has started?

This whole kerfuffle is why the Democratic party has such a wishy-washy image - -all this bending over backwards to try and be fair to everyone can be counter-productive. The Republicans are cut and dried, winner take all, and the Democrats have their soft delocate allocation plan so that nobody gets their feelings hurt too badly. It's just nuts.

Why not tell everybody - candidates and voters - to just suck it up and stick to the rules as they were laid down by the top dog? And then use the hard lessons we learned this time to make some necessary changes in our election system?

ZDZP: Characteristically, we disagree. Characteristically, if there are good and thought-provoking arguments made on behalf on causes I myself believe to be utterly misguided, it's you making them ;-)

At any rate, I'm delighted to hear your voice again on here.

I think you are right about this: Both Clinton and Obama are trying to play by the "rules" that favor their own candidacy--that is just politics, and Obama is no angel. But let me propose what I regard as two crucial distinctions to acknowledge in navigating some of these issues.

First: Hillary can pick whichever rules she wants play by, but she needs to be consistent. You cannot argue both that the delegates of FL and MI be seated and that the superdelegates can ultimately overthrow the popular vote, as HRC has in fact done. This is because the principle at the core of the one is that every vote should count and majoritarian outcomes ultimately matter; the principle behind the other is that they don't matter and that they can be overthrown by an elite. HRC's problem is not that she's trying to bend the rules her own way--every politician would do that. What I find disgusting is her blatant, and cynical, inconsistency: either the issue is democracy, or it's some elites saving us from it: what it cannot, intelligibly, be is both at once.

Second, let us distinguish between following the explicit rules and the kind of implicit proprieties that govern their application. The first issue is what the rules literally say, the other is the larger context in which they ultimately operate, and the social expectations about their use. Of course you and Joann are right that--technically--superdelegates may vote however they choose. But plainly, that rule is in tension with others, such as the very idea of a popular vote and delegate count based on it. If superdelegate rules were the only institution or rules determining elections, then we wouldn't have a problem. But to the extent that it is expected that they will not blatantly overturn the popular vote, appeal to the "official" power invested in them, is, I think, ssimply forceless.

zdzp,

It is not about the voters. it is about Power. Influence.

Mich and Flor saw that early primaries got lots of attention, power and influence (and money).

Hillary wants power and influence, so she is interested in Mich and Flor.

Mich and Flor broke the rules. Hillary is supporting these states that use strong arm tactics for power and influence. This is wrong. She is wrong.

I am sad about the voters, they should remove their democratic party leaders who deliberately put them and the entire party into this jam.

Hillary Clinton defied her own party when they penalized those two states, because she doesn't care about her own party; she cares about winning.

Then she insisted on a re-vote, because the peoples' voice must be heard -- only to turn around and threaten Pelosi about the super delegates, arguing that they should decide, and not the people. Because she doesn't care about the people, the party or the country. She cares about winning at all cost. What a damn hypocrite.

Obama isn't as angelic as some people make him out to be, but he's wrestling with a pig, and that'll make anyone look dirty.

small point of order here: the voters did show up to the pools on time.

Small point of order here... it's a primary, not an election. Their state party screwed up.

So, using your example. Both mom and dad agree that I am not allowed to watch TV. Mom goes ahead and let's me watch TV. Then dad gets home and grounds me. Both parents agreed on the rules. There is no unfair play there.

The state democratic parties are their own dogs. The DNC is it's own dog. And the Presidential campaign is its own dog. The all fight with each other and work together.

This should be a lesson to people to get involved in their own state parties, lets you get people in charge that will disenfranchise you.

I'm a Michigan voter and my anger is directed squarely where it should be: at the state Dems who gambled with the state and lost.

Little Mickey - I did not know you were a MI voter so 'how does that make you feel' rings hollow for me but more dearly for you. your point is well taken - who better to answer this question than a MI or FL voter - and I would be so torn as well.

Adam- I thought if i poked around enough I would hear from you and your response does not disappoint. Some may say that Clinton is being an opportunist and manipulating the rules and winning at all cost to the detriment of the party; others may say she is demonstrating her political savvy in this cynical, pragmatic, tough-as-nails manner in a way which makes her a better political opponent in the general election. to be honest, I am torn because I still feel that this 'killer' instinct was the missing ingredient in Kerry and Gore's campaigns. But does it need to be used in this way to secure the democratic nomination?

sorry got to go . haven't put my argument together very well here, more later...

Hillary's 'killer instinct' is a double edged sword.

That she can take in and process so much hate and pressure to move one way or another and yet remain steadfast on the path that she's chosen would be admirable if it weren't so frightening.

If she's this nervy and bold on the campaign trail, I literally tremble to think what she'd do if she were to win all the marbles.

Anyone who frequents this site remembers all-too-well how awful it was to have to watch George W. Bush go full-steam-ahead with the Iraq war without the hint of caring that the rest of the world thought (correctly, of course) that we had gone insane.

I fear the same sort of leadership style with Hillary Clinton. In fact, I fear her even worse than Bush because she is much, much smarter and more calculating than G.W. is.

His disasters have been tragic, yes, but in a sort of careless, bumbling idiot sort of way. Hillary Clinton disasters have, I fear, the potential for a laser-pointed accuracy about them. And I think that's somehow worse.

And with Obama there is the potential to not act at all - and that can be bad, too. But after the last 8 years we are in the process of recovering from, I think a period of quiet reflection is just what the country needs.

"the voters did show up to the pools on time. it was the state party that told them when to do so. the voters really had no choice. why do you feel it is necessary to punish them for a mistake the state party made?"

The voters are not being penalized. The state Democratic parties are. Yes, the regular Dems are getting the shaft, but it's not because they're being specifically targeted.

The real problem, which no political party worth its salt can overlook, is the insubordination of state parties. In almost all American nominating contests (ironicaly, except this onw), the order of contests really matters. So a state can have a huge effect on who is the nominee by either moving themselves to the front or declining to do so. Who make this decision, to move? Not the voters--the state parties and state legislatures. So a pro-Hillary state with pro-Hillary party leaders and legislators could move their state to the front of the line and act as a king (queen) maker, whereas a state with different leaders could decide not to. Even against the wishes of the voters, and the national party. So you cannot allow states to do that, especially when Republican state legislators have a big hand in setting the date.

This is why this talk of people being disenfranchised is really wrong. It's like complainng that a rigged election shouldn't be invalidated, because it would disenfranchise the voters who went to the polls. Sure the Democratic primary voters should get their chance, but the national party cannot allow the state leaders to use these votes in any way they choose.

I think this stuff about a "killer instinct" is really a result of some serious selective memory. Kerry was relentless about attacking Bush. He did the honorable thing and did it in his own voice, whereas Bush used surrogates. Problem was that Kerry was a challenger running against a guy who had less than 50% approval. He should have spent less time expressing the frustrations of liberals who hated Bush, and more time presenting himself as the alternative. As it turned out he was the first challenger in the history of the Gallup Poll to lose to an incumbent with lower than 50% approval. The problem was not that Bush hadn't been attacked enough. I'm saying this as someone who supoorted Kerry and campaigned for him for a whole week.

Hillary is willing to fight to get power, but she doesn't worry too much about how she's doing it. This is a problem. Bill did this to some extent, but he was a great politician so he gave people positive reasons to vote for him as well. Hillary has proven people 100% correct, who said that she's would be a very divisive political figure. What they didn't realize was that she would even divide her own party.

I fear the same sort of leadership style with Hillary Clinton. In fact, I fear her even worse than Bush because she is much, much smarter and more calculating than G.W. is.

first, I appreciate the discourse and understand your position.

however, it is a sad sad day when this nomination process has led many to equate Hillary's motives with that of W.'s, and to, believe that she would be worse than W. I cannot begin to try and analyze which camp (O or H) is responsible for this negativity because, as everyone can see, such a discussion will lead only to more introspection, polarization and pessimism among a group that was filled with so much, dare I say, hope at the beginning of this process. I do not see the villification of either candidate as being productive in the end.

I am most disturbed that some people feel that Hillary as president would 'frighten' people because she is so nervy, bold, calculating, laser-focused (these by the way would be considered positive qualities as a president and some would even say - speak to one's leadership skills). It seems that some feel Hillary will use all these qualities we desire in a leader and president to do what ? something evil it seems.

perhaps it is all the fear-mongering we have been cowering under the last 8 years, perhaps it is that we have finally become what we fear most about republicans (with a broad brush I confess) - to paint things in black and white, good and evil - that we have now put Hillary in one bin and Obama in the other when it comes down to being president.

W.'s faults are myriad and stem from his wilful ignorance, selfishness, greed, ignorance, petulance, hypocrisy ignorance, carelessness, frontal lobishness,and, did I mention, ignorance and complete lack of intellectual curiousity.

Hillary is smart - savvy - able to make bold decisions based on facts, knowledge, intelligence. Whether one agrees with these decisions is a different matter. But one thing that can be said about smart people - they are not ignorant of the consequences of their action. Unless you truly believe that Hillary is evil at the core, it is hard to deny that there is an innate sense of 'doing the right thing' in smart people, because it ultimately reinforces what they believe in - that knowledge, intelligence and understanding will lead to good things - for which they have been rewarded and for which the greater good benefits.

perhaps I am not explaining myself clearly here - but my generalization is that, unless you have the heart of hitler,

smart people are good at the core because they realize what is good for everyone will ultimately be good for them in a material or altruistic sense.

I am most disturbed that some people feel that Hillary as president would 'frighten' people because she is so nervy, bold, calculating, laser-focused (these by the way would be considered positive qualities as a president and some would even say - speak to one's leadership skills).... Hillary is smart - savvy - able to make bold decisions based on facts, knowledge, intelligence.

Ok, but her Iraq war vote, her vote to make Iran's National Gaurd a Terrorist organization, and other votes aren't exactly the kind of "laser-focus" i'm looking for in a President.

We've had 8 years of a guy who was laser focused, on Terror mind you, but his focus usally made him wrong. You can call Bush stupid and incompetent, but you can't say he didn't stand by his support of fightin' terra and failed policies.

You can call Bush stupid and incompetent, but you can't say he didn't stand by his support of fightin' terra and failed policies.

Being laser-focused on misguided and uninformed decisions is not what Clinton (and I'm sure Obama) would espouse.

but her Iraq war vote, her vote to make Iran's National Gaurd a Terrorist organization

as you know when Barack, could vote on the war - he voted the same as Hillary. don't want to get in the action speak louder than words argument but I think Barack supporters should lay this Iraq war vote highhorse to rest because slinging aphorisms around (and I"m guilty as charged) is non productive.

you will have to explain the National Gaurd = Terrorist organization vote - I admit I missed that one.