Hillary: I Might Take Fight Over Florida And Michigan To Convention!
Hillary advisers have publicly said that they expect a Dem nominee to be chosen by early June, but it looks like Hillary is envisioning a scenario under which this contest could go all the way to the convention, after all:
BOCA RATON, Fla. - Hillary Rodham Clinton says she is willing to take her fight to seat Florida and Michigan delegates to the convention if the two states want to go that far. In an interview with The Associated Press, Clinton was asked whether she would support the states if they continue the fight.The presidential candidate said Wednesday, "Yes I will. I will, because I feel very strongly about this."
Could this really happen? Could Hillary take the battle over Florida and Michigan all the way to the convention? It's possible, but unlikely.
The next major step along the way is May 31st, when the Rules and Bylaws Committee meets to consider what to do about Florida and Michigan. For reasons that we'll explain here in more detail tomorrow, it's likely that the RBC will successfully vote on some sort of solution to get them seated in some fashion.
If that doesn't happen, the next stop is the Credentials Committee in late June. Hillary supporters are outnumbered on the Cred Committee by Obama supporters. DNC chair Howard Dean also controls a bloc of members. In theory, if the Cred Committee didn't reach a solution to Hillary's liking, her backers could introduce a minority report at the convention.
But this is unlikely to happen in reality. She says she'll take it this far if the state delegations want to, which seems unlikely. And without the states as cover, her backers on the committee seem unlikely to take this step, too, because such an effort would almost certainly fail, and her backers -- some of whom have their own careers to think about -- would take the blame for the ensuing chaos.
In short, it's highly unlikely that this will come down to the convention. But it's not impossible. More on this in some detail tomorrow.
The Pantsuit Menace.
Sheesh!
May 21, 2008 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Having trashed Hillary as a vile, racist witch (and worse—far worse) for the better part of a year and snarlingly dismissed myself and other Hillary supporters as racist, white-trash goons, how do you propose to convince us to vote for BO? Or do you believe, as does the essentially unemployable Ms. Brazile, that you can win without Catholics, blue collar whites and Latinos? And please, please, please in your response, don’t hesitate to be arrogantly self righteous and insulting (why change now?)
May 21, 2008 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
arrogantly self righteous and insulting
you got that covered all ready
May 21, 2008 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Looks like the Plutocratic Party isn't going to give up power easily.
May 21, 2008 9:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sigh... the venom cut both ways, and don't hold your breath looking for something in the way of contrition and apologies. Obama supporters can only point out the core Democratic values we share and encourage Hillary supporters to vote on the issues in the fall. I voted in Nevada, early in the process, and did so based on who I felt would be a better leader. All that was before the "kitchen sink" strategy deployed by the Clinton campaign. I'm not asking for any apologies from Clinton supporters about the way she ran her campaign, or how some have been trashing Obama for months. I'll assume we're all going to put the darker moments of the primary campaign behind us and vote based on the values we share as citizens. And you?
May 21, 2008 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is wishful thinking on the part of the TPM team. There is no reason to give any quarter here. Obama has no real choice but to give in on this point.
Greg's argument is that the Clinton folk have to bend because the outcome would be disastrous for the party otherwise. On the contrary, that is why the party leader has to compromise. At this point that would be Obama.
You don't play brinksmanship unless you know you will win if they pull the trigger.
There never was a chance to keep the delegations out of the convention. Outside the Obama camp there really is no belief that excluding two critical states is a matter of principle, its just shooting the party in the foot.
So maybe she of the pantsuit wants a symbolic victory before quitting the race. Let her have it. The race will be won or lost with the superdelegates at this point. Obama has them locked up unless he makes a blunder. Even with the two states and Puerto Rico, Clinton cannot make up the difference.
May 21, 2008 6:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Outside the Obama camp there really is no belief that excluding two critical states is a matter of principle,
When McAulliffe argued very forcefully for excluding states that broke the scheduling rules in 2004, he was threatening to exclude any states that did what FL and MI did this year. Was his argument (in 2004) a matter of principle? It wasn't at that point a matter of helping any particular campaign, so if it wasn't a matter of principle what was it? But if it was a matter of principle, then when Obama makes the same argument now, why isn't that a matter of principle also?
We've got one campaign arguing to follow the rules (as McAulliffe argued in 2004), and one arguing to overlook the breaking of the rules (as, heh heh, McAulliffe argues now that his candidate would benefit from it). And you're saying that the latter is more likely to be a principled stand than the former?
http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/4/26/42434/4239
May 21, 2008 7:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, sorry, sorry. I completely misread what you wrote. Ugh. My apologies.
May 21, 2008 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did Terry 'McAulliffe' exclude any states from the convention in 2004? No. Yet another bogus experiment in Obama logic.
May 22, 2008 1:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Only because Michigan backed down and did not move its primary forward as it was threatening to do.
May 22, 2008 9:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
You don't know that he would have actually kept them out. He wouldn't have. Kerry already had enough votes. The Democrats never have. Obama/Dean are the first ones to disenfranchise voters.
May 22, 2008 7:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
...because it will be the obviously right, and more importantly, desperately needed, thing to do.
Is the personal offense you feel you have taken worth killing Roe v Wade, saying 'whatever' to global warming and US oil dependence, throwing the country into more unnecessary wars, bankrupting a generation, and allowing the status quo in Washington to continue (i.e., no healthcare, immigration, jobs, education solutions) ???
If you think that's a fair trade for not supporting Obama than by all means don't vote for him.
May 21, 2008 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is not my job to convince you to vote for anyone. As a free thinking democrat, you should be fully capable of making up your own mind based on issues.
Did Obama or his representatives call you a racist, white trash goon, or was it some random 14 year old kid trolling on TPM?
Apparently, your political positions are formed by fishing for negative comments on a political website, whose commenters are overwhelmingly Obama supporters. When you inevitably find unfavorable comments about Hillary, your first reaction is to treat yourself as a victim rather than thinking for yourself.
Awww...poor you.
May 21, 2008 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hear! Hear!
May 21, 2008 6:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Chezchas, I couldn't agree with you more!
I heard there's a grass movement afoot. Sign up here to truly allow your voice to be heard!
There are serious issues at stake in this election. John McCain is ready to solve problems and put the national interest ahead of partisanship.
John McCain 2008
Official Web Communicator
May 21, 2008 6:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, John McCain's webtrolls have found their way to TPM.
It's a watershed moment in astroturfing.
May 22, 2008 12:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
is that you Chezchas, pimping your own work? Are your friends from GayPatriot.com helping as well?
May 22, 2008 6:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
If he were truly interested in solving our national interests he'd want to get us the f*ck out of Iraq.
May 22, 2008 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have never called Hillary vile, racist or a witch nor have I ever besmirched her supporters (with the possible exception of the Taylor Marsh crowd). What I have called her is The Pantsuit Menace to the Democratic Party. She fought the good fight. She lost. There's no shame in that. But, if she really believes what she espouses on the stump, then she should know that the man in the crosshairs is John McCain, that he is the personification of a third Bush term and that Barack Obama, who will indisputably be the Democratic nominee, needs to turn his full attention to him and she should let that happen.
No, I believe that we must have a Democratic coalition that includes Catholics, blue-collar whites and blue-collar blacks, Latinos, etc., to win. And I think that if Hillary Clinton were to act in the best interest of the party, she would realize that the sooner she steps aside and allows Obama to court said groups --- with her help --- that those groups would unite behind the Obama candidacy and McCain would be toast. I'll pass on accepting your invitation to be arrogantly self-righteous.
May 21, 2008 7:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
You really think someone who spoke with a straight face of obliterating a sovereign nation, wiping it (and its citizens) from the face of the earth, would have any meaningful differences with a McCain Presidency?
May 21, 2008 8:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know, I'd like to give her the benefit of the doubt. But, with the Zimbabwe comment this afternoon, I'm beginning to thing she may be seriously mentally ill.
Or, as we say in Alabama, crazy as a run-over dog.
NOTE: I did NOT say vile, racist or a witch.
May 21, 2008 10:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Argh!
"think," not "thing."
May 21, 2008 10:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've never called Hillary vile, racist or a witch. Nor have I maligned her supporters (unless they maligned me first and with the possible exception of the Taylor Marsh crowd). I do think she is The Pantsuit Menace to the Democratic Party in that she's lost and refuses to step aside and is, thereby, prolonging unnecessarily the nomination process and preventing us from focusing on John McCain and a third Bush term. Isn't beating McCain the real goal here? Or shouldn't it be?
First of all, thanks for the invitation to be arrogant, self-righteous and insulting, but I'll pass.
To answer your question, no, I think we must have a coalition that includes Catholics, blue-collar whites and blue-collar blacks, Latinos and others who share our goals of restoring America's place in the world as its best and brightest beacon of hope, preventing disastrous appointments to the Supreme Court, restoring and respecting human, civil and personal rights, getting out of Iraq and fixing our economy. I also believe that, if Sen. Clinton had in mind the party's best interest, she would step aside and join the indisputable nominee, Barack Obama, in working to make sure the aforementioned groups become part of a coalition that would certainly be a cinch to win in November.
I hope I've adequately answered your question.
May 21, 2008 7:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Geez, sorry all. I thought I lost the first response.
May 21, 2008 7:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
and don't forget WOMEN ! A good percentage of women are not going to forget and will not vote for Obama. And with these groups, he can most definitely NOT win.
~ smiling to myself ~
ahh, its almost worth it to witness the defeat!!
And I am NOT one of those who want to see her on his ticket. I really hope she will not take it if offered. But if she DID take it, I still would not vote for him.
He and his supporters are the most vile repulsive group we have witnessed in a long long time. And if this is what we've been missing with the "youth vote" then I hope the so called "youth" stay home in the future. They don't have a clue about what's needed in our country.
May 21, 2008 7:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah yes. What's need in this country...more people from the same families running the same things.
You should move to Pakistan, you can vote for the Bhutto family for the past 30 and coming 30 years...in between the military dictatorships of course. I prefer democracy and some other of the 300+ million people here getting a chance.
May 21, 2008 7:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
and don't forget WOMEN ! A good percentage of women are not going to forget and will not vote for Obama. And with these groups, he can most definitely NOT win.
Spoken like a true female impersonator.
May 21, 2008 8:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
No kidding. Especially considering Obama is already getting the women's vote or close, except in deep red areas that will vote Republican anyways.
Real Democratic women and Indies will support Obama in Nov. All these Republican Limbots aren't fooling anyone.
It's not like Kentucky has any chance in hell of voting Democratic.
May 22, 2008 1:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Vile and repulsive? Don't you think that is overstating things? Every candidate has over-the-top supporters, and it really isn't fair to judge a candidate by the people who support her. I have not supported Hillary, but I would never call her a racist piece of white trash as you seem to suggest.
And what makes Obama vile? It seems to me that he's been very respectful of the Clintons. He's taken a lot of her cheap shots (the stupid plagiarism charge, change you can xerox, etc) and has rarely retaliated -- and has never retaliated where the Clintons are most vulnerable -- Monica, impeachment, the Rich pardon, the pilfering of White House furniture.
May 21, 2008 8:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
This coming from the Raek of "Ugly Little Fucker" fame? Is the new "a" at the end of your name because they finally banned you? You'll no doubt feign surprise that no long-time reader here buys that you're a woman, either.
May 21, 2008 9:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
RaeKa,
You seem to have taken this entire campaign and reduced it down to a fight between you and others on the internet. You have taken everything personally and are not actually thinking clearly. Your comments seem to be both vile and repulsive, and make you come across as an extremely bitter person.
This party needs to come together and beat McRain, not continue these divisive arguments. Your canidate has lost, no one likes that, but why flush everything down the drain out of spit?
I hope you - and others like you - eventually see reason...
Jeffrey Pierce
May 21, 2008 10:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
RaeKa is a troll and quire possibly a Limbot. There certainly are some here as Limbuagh, LGF, New Republic and such havens for morons encourage trolling. They're not going to declare themselves. RaeKa is high on the probable list.
Why do they troll? I guess it's their attempt at revenge for being stuck in various armpits and asscracks of the nation.
May 22, 2008 1:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
kozmik,
Yeah reaka is most certainly a limot sitting in a dark basement in her stained underwear eating twinkies and xanax. This is the highlight of her life.
Jeffrey
May 22, 2008 1:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Do you want another Bush presidency?
I have immense respect for Senator Clinton. However, I sincerely hope that most Clinton supporters are not like you.
We need to come together and defeat the Republicans, not tear each other apart!!
Jeffrey Pierce
May 21, 2008 10:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
You sound as if you think Obama has exhibited sexist behavior or made sexist statements. If I'm correct in my assumption, please provide examples.
May 21, 2008 11:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excuse me? I'm a woman and I am most definitely voting for Obama. Hillary has succeeded where the Repugnicans could not - she has successfully divided the Democratic Party. Way to go, HillBillPill! I don't mean to case aspersions on Bill either; I love the guy. I really can't tell Hillary from a Repugnican. She has threatened to wipe out an entire nation with a nuclear bomb if their leadership doesn't do what she demands? Who does she think she's appealing to here? That's right, the war is good, Repugnican crowd. She's not winning with the Dems, so she switches to Repug tactics. No thanks. Perhaps there's a place for her on McCain's ticket, as VP.
PJHusseinWhite
May 22, 2008 3:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Guess you missed that in Oregon, the women came out for Obama over HIllary...
Whoops.
May 22, 2008 5:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
and don't forget WOMEN ! A good percentage of women are not going to forget and will not vote for Obama. And with these groups, he can most definitely NOT win.
~ smiling to myself ~
ahh, its almost worth it to witness the defeat!!
You go right ahead, RaeKa. Vote for McSame. Or stay home and sulk. Flush Roe v. Wade right down the toilet. Wow -- now that's a real women's vote for ya.
May 23, 2008 12:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
If they read the TPM comment sections they're 80% likely to be Obama supporters anyway. High information voters.
The other 20% care too much to allow McCain to win, or are already Republican trolls.
Not that I support name-calling and divisiveness, but really this is a silly argument.
May 21, 2008 8:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Clinton ever concedes, and asks her supporters to support Obama, would you? I would for Clinton--not happily, at first, but I imagine eventually I'd be fighting full bore against McCain. I am very curious the argument people will use when they would use if they don't do as Hillary asks.
May 21, 2008 8:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton supporters have been told so long that Clinton is identical to McCain, well, what can I say...it's starting to boomerang.
May 21, 2008 8:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
You mean you have been told by Hillary herself for so long that she is just like McCain.
As for boomerangs, I am not sure how much a democrat will enjoy a McCain presidency, but have at it. Sounds like you need to find a better way to make decisions besides the comment section of blogs.
May 21, 2008 9:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Leader's Directive Number 1: Be nice.
You have disobeyed a direct order from the Chosen One. The show trial and party expulsion will follow.
May 22, 2008 12:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Tell me where I was being mean.
You said that you were swayed to vote McCain because you were being told he was the next best thing after Clinton. The person I heard that from the most has been Hillary.
If you think that is mean... boomerang away.
May 23, 2008 12:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Will you stick with the Democratic Party after Hillary Clinton goes all Lieberman on the Party once the DEM nomination process fails annoint her Queen-Godess of the United States of America and the Universe or join the Hillmentum in delivering the White House to John McCain for four years?
Inquiring minds wanta know . . .
May 21, 2008 10:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
The main thing is to keep that anger alive. As insulted as you feel, the good of the country should be the last thing on your mind. But seriously, come off it. Assume a situation where the tables were turned - - - Hillary wins a majority of committed and superdelegates, Barack's only hope rests on counting results that he and his campaign had agreed should not be counted and then convincing superdelegates to reverse the outcome of the primary process - - - is there any question where you would stand?
May 22, 2008 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
What if I told you I've been around long enough that the Clintons scare the BeJesus out of me? What if I told you they are owned by all the big lobbys? What if I told you they are always changing the rules? You have only to watch what is happening *right* *now*. All is not fair in love and politics... I voted for Bill Clinton twice. But the last go around, he lied about what he did. They tend to lie a lot and that's exactly why I don't trust either of them. They are used to getting what they want no matter what it takes, and that makes me not trust them. Honestly look at the shenanigans they're pulling to fudge the numbers. They really don't have the popular vote. As far as they are concerned, this is not about our country, chezchas, it is about what THEY want. Vote for who you want. I'm not mad at anyone. But if Clinton gets the nod, I cannot, in all good conscience, vote for them.
May 22, 2008 9:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll do it! I swear, I'll do it!!
It's like she's been driven to some point of crazed desperation.
She needs to be talked down - and I would add that an injection of some sort might not be out of the question.
May 21, 2008 7:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary and McCain are both in the Corporate Party. Neither want change, both want status quo: social wedge issues forever, while passing the corporate agenda.
That's why she's willing to go nuclear if she loses. If Obama wins on "change" then the genie is out of the bottle and it's the beginning of the end of a corporate era for her and McCain.
May 22, 2008 2:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
I would agree and it's about her close association with the DLC. But, much of this is also just about Hillary's personality, I think. She just can't stand the thought of losing this and she will not accept that until she is forced to. Which is really unfortunate, because although she's always had her share of detracters, she was generally well-respected in the Party. I believe that her conduct in this Primary has seriously damaged her politically and will have long-term negative consequences for her career. Perhaps that explains why she's going for broke now. She's "all in."
May 22, 2008 10:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
ahh, another mysogynist who will give me such great pleasure in casting my vote for McCain....
~ smiling again ~
and what do men wear? pants suits or men suits? why do you make it demeaning when a lady wears a suit of jacket and pants??
You are so repugnant and vile I may just upchuck right on you...
You and your little group, Chris Mathews, Olbermann, David Shuster... Cafferty....
All of you mysogenists have given us real energy to continue this fight and then after its all done, if our gal isn't the winner, we will bring you assholes down, hard and fast. And it will be FUN....
Assholes!
May 21, 2008 7:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's fun to pretend, isn't it?
"...YOU mysogenists have given US real energy...if OUR GAL isn't the winner..."
Golly, you must be a woman. Only a woman would talk like that.
May 21, 2008 8:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, that'll show those damned misogynists!
May 21, 2008 8:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
"ahh, another mysogynist who will give me such great pleasure in casting my vote for McCain....
Misogynist, as in "you girls" or "my girl can [fill in the blank]" or "see what I have in my humidor..."?
That type of misogynist?
Truly, Bill Clinton, and his "stand by her man" enabling companion certainly have inspired a whole generation of neo-conservatives to vote McCain/Bush.
And he was the very misogynist who spoke of "his girl" while on this current primary campaign trail. I cringed every time, as should most any person who actually believes in equality and fair treatment.
Yes, the fuzzy cigar reference was a cheap shot back to his former life (in the White House, when he actually had serious business to conduct). Pardon me for that -- though I seriously doubt he has reformed that much.
But, please do vote for McCain, since you are so concerned about the status of misogyny in this country. You will help to enshrine that very misogyny into law through the high court into which McCain will place the last remaining neo-conservative bricks.
Woman's right to control her own body? Gone!
Equal pay for equal jobs? Fuhgeddaboutit. Never happen, and that will be cemented into legal interpretation.
Yup. Be concerned about Catholic support too. After all, McCain has Hagee at his back, who will ensure to preach loud and clear about Catholicism being (Hagee's words here) "The Great Whore."
That's a smart feminist reaction, for sure: Vote for McCain by all means.
Do not, by any means, trust a man who not only read the Constitution, but was able to teach Constitutional law.
Of course, that's a (~~smiling here~~) totally rational False Flag approach.
May 21, 2008 10:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Raeka,
You are most certainly a Republican Limbot who is sitting in her dark dank basement in her stained underwear eating twinkies and xanax.
Please go back to the cesspool with the other Republican maniacs.
Regards,
Jeffrey Pierce
May 22, 2008 2:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Notice a lot of the trolls who hate Obama have racial references in their avatars too. Black sheep, monkeys, etc. A lot of these douches are inbred hicks.
There's a subculture of white supremacists online, caus it's the only place they won't get their asses kicked. Really pathetic scum of the earth. Check out this band of colorful clowns:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mississippi_White_Knights_in_Poplarville.jpg
Look at the potbellied inbred goobers with masks off on the left. That's humanity's best? We're doomed! lol
May 22, 2008 2:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Koz,
I saw the yahoo you were referring to, he was staring with a dull idiotic look on his face, just waiting for someone to tell him what to do next, he actually looked rather lost.
I too find it suspicious that most of the trolls have blatantly racist content in their profiles.
This our chance to finally take the country back from these kooks!
Jeffrey
May 22, 2008 2:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
WHERE WAS SHE BEFORE SHE WON FLORIDA AND MICHIGAN? WHY WASN'T SHE FIGHTING THE GOOD FIGHT THEN?
May 21, 2008 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seconded, but without the all-caps.
May 21, 2008 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just so we're clear. Nobody fought the good fight.
May 21, 2008 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
It looks like you're fighting the good fight in that picture.
May 21, 2008 7:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry. (White hard working beer drinking mid-5-digit-income male Obama supporting) Michigan resident here.
She didn't "win" Florida or Michigan. Nobody did. The votes did not count. Many stayed home in my state because a) the vote did not count and/or b) there was no name on the ballot for which to place an X next to.
Nobody campaigned here, because they all agreed not too, that the primary activity here and FL were exercises in futility -- DID NOT COUNT.
Early in the process, with no local campaigning by anyone, it was not a primary, it was a "which name do you recognize?" popularity contest.
That's why, when Obama first suggested the re-vote be exactly that (toss out the previous results, let all candidates campaign, then let everyone "re" vote), Clinton obstructed the proposal. You know, disenfranchised those who may not have pulled the lever, un-hung the chad, or poked the screen for someone other than her.
Her "righteous" struggle for the voters in my state has been the same since that day. "I get my votes (from the un-campaigned popularity contest) and you don't get yours!"
Yeah. Just like the fight for abolition (as she suggested in a FL speech today). Just like the suffragette movement (as she suggested in the same speech).
Harriet Beecher Stowe is spinning so hard down in that knotty pine it's likely to start a fire but for all the dirt.
May 21, 2008 10:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yawn
May 21, 2008 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seriously this crap with FL and MI has to stop. The should not be seated, and if they don't reverse their decision next cycle then they shouldn't be seated in *any* future conventions. If you're going to deliberately break the rules in order to try to gain undue influence over the process, be prepared to face the consequences.
The alternative is anarchy, and I look forward to NY and CA moving their primaries to the head of the line if that's the case.
May 21, 2008 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Alabama Democratic Party announced today that its 2012 presidential primary will be held Dec. 1, 2008.
May 21, 2008 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
And pursuant to state law requiring him to keep New Hampshire first, the Secretary of State of New Hampshire announced that the New Hampshire primary would be held last week.
May 21, 2008 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now that's funny right there!
May 21, 2008 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
And the reason for protecting South Carolina and Nevada was to ensure that blacks and hispanics had a meaningful say in the nomination process before it was over. Why isn't Hillary lambasting Florida and Michigan for trying to continue the disenfranchisement of blacks and hispancis?
May 21, 2008 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't realize there weren't any Black or Hispanic people in Florida or Michigan.
Thanks for pointing that out.
You learn something new every day.
May 21, 2008 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right, because if there's one thing Florida doesn't have, it's Hispanics. And Michigan has no black population at all.
Sure.
May 21, 2008 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Black population, SC: 29%
Black population, MI: 14%
But hey - thanks for playing!
Hispanic population, Nevada: 24%
Hispanic population, Florida: 20%
So, between Nevada and Florida, the DNC made a choice. By vote. And votes should be respected, you say.
May 21, 2008 6:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
True but Florida voted on 1/29. AFTER Iowa 1/3, NH 1/8 Nevada 1/19, and South Carolina 1/26.
The order as determined by the DNC Gods was to be IA, NV, NH, and then SC.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0107/2439.html
Did they punish NH for moving before Nevada and jumping the line? NO they did not because they acted according to state law - as did Florida. But they punished Florida even though they voted after the 4 "early window" states. You can't make that argument for Michigan which voted on 1/15, but you can sure as hell make it for Florida.
And finally, this was a Republican givernor and state legislature that made the move to change the date and rejected the democratic effort to issue an amendment changing the date. The DNC saying 1.7 million voters don't count because their rules weren't adhered to? Guess what- every vvote should count is more important than the edicts issued by chairman dean and donaa brazille.
May 21, 2008 7:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
NH was scheduled to occur after IA and NV for one reason: it was supposed to be the FIRST PRIMARY. IA and NV are causcus states. When Michigan made their move, NH petitioned the DNC and obtained their APPROVAL for the move. Thus, no sanctions.
Michigan and Florida played chicken and lost.
May 21, 2008 7:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bingo.
The ultimate irony being, that if they hadn't tried to game the system, their votes would have carried more weight than what they were trying to do and certainly more than what they will end up with.
May 21, 2008 7:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
WRONG NH moved before NV because they wanted to be the second CONTEST even though the DNC edict said IA then NV THEN NH.
Why is NH allowed to say eff you to DNC rules and Florida gets punished by 100% of it's delegates removed. Is that really the message the DNC wants to send to Floriday. If it were me, if my count don't count in January then it definitely shouldn't count in November. NOW only today when Obama steps foot in Florida to collect money for his campaign does his campaign come to the reality that FL must be resolved in a fair way and seated. PATHETIC AND TRANSPARENT. The voters of FL see right through his BS.
May 21, 2008 7:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pathetic and transparent? Hmmm, seems like a fitting description for a candidate who a few months ago agreed that MI and FL wouldn't count but now teetering on the cliff of failure is grasping at any loose root to keep her from falling.
May 21, 2008 8:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just read the rest of your post. I'd encourage you to familiarize yourself with the Florida vote on these measures. It passed almost unanimously (I think 2 state senators voted against the measure).
May 21, 2008 7:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
It was an election reform bill including updating machines etc which if you hadn't noticed is till important or don't you recall the hanging chads? Florida Dems are not going to vote down an election reform bill with lots of other stuff in it because the dems didn't have the power to change the primary date. They tried and failed. They DNC rules allow for the states to petition to be seated and Florida has a more than fair case to be fully seated.
Michigan, not so much. That was the democratic state party that made a boneheaded move but they also have a chance to make their case to the committee.
May 21, 2008 7:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
A DEMOCRAT sponsored the bill:
http://www.pensitoreview.com/2007/09/28/it-was-a-democrat-not-republicans-who-moved-floridas-primary-date/
All I know is that the situation in Michigan and Florida rest SQUARELY in the laps of the Michigan and Florida legislatures. And up until she abandoned her pledge, none of the candidates bore any responsibility. Clinton's dishonest antics, however, have compounded their initial error but suggesting that the DNC and others (wink, wink, Obama) are responsible for this situation.
It's despicable and frankly speaks VOLUMES about Senator Clinton.
May 21, 2008 7:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
What speaks VOLUMES about Obama's character is he is the only one who violated the rules by running campaign ads in the state. What speaks VOLUMES about Obama's character is that his campaign only now coumes to the realization that FL & MI must be represented fairly now that he thinks he may have enough delgates so it won't matter OR because he realizes he has to campaign in the state, he starts hitting them up for campaign funds, and the voters in FL are PISSED. That seating the delegates 50/50 is bull and he couldn't step foot in Florida with his campaign still arguing that crap.
Time to catch up! Obama knows the delegates need to be seated fairly. Now the only question is what is fair.
May 21, 2008 7:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do you have ADD or something, because you keep shifting the basis of your argument? So now that we've settled the question of who was responsible for this situation, you say that Obama violated the Pledge that Clinton is now pretending never existed?
He did run a national ad on, I believe, CNN and MSNBC to reach the Super Tuesday states. CNN and MSNBC could not restrict the states on which it ran. South Carolina, the last of the first 4 states, signed off on the ad as consistent with the Pledge (that thingy, that Clinton signed but later repudiated). And Howard Dean did not raise any objections. At least that's my understanding.
His campaign is complying with the rules as they exist. And winning. Even seating the delegates as Clinton would like, she loses. She can't win. It's over.
And you are wrong about NH. New Hampshire law says that it has to be at least 7 days prior to a substantially similar event. NV and IA were caucuses and not substantially similar. Michigan's primary was substantially similar. That's why they petition to move their primary up.
May 21, 2008 8:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Correction NH gave a big middle finger to the dnc and moved their primary before nevada so that they could keep their birthright as second in the nation:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17479744/
They did not respect Howard Dean's authoritay (said in the tone of eric cartman) and there was no punishment.
Second senator clinton respected the pledge and did not campaign in MI or FL at all. Obama ran adds in FL of course "unintentionally" but got a permission slip? I am sure if it was Clinton who ran ads you'd be fine with it. Senator Clinton never said she agreed that the state delgates would not be counted or seated. There was always a mechanism ithin the rules to resolve this dispute.
And if I seem to have ADD it's because all the rational arguments say the states need to be counted. There is no rational argument to discount the votes of 1.7 million people.
May 21, 2008 9:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
"What speaks VOLUMES about Obama's character is he is the only one who violated the rules by running campaign ads in the state.
Um. Sorry. Obama ran a national ad that happened to play in Florida (too late for any effect in Michigan -- and not aimed that way), and made the choice to do so after the Clinton campaign announced its intention to stage a "win" rally in FL just after the votes were tallied. Neither broke the rules. Both broke the spirit of the rules they all agreed to.
But, on character issues, it comes down to (as police must sort out in the aftermath of a brawl) "who threw the first punch."
May 21, 2008 10:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
That makes no effing sense. Obama was running national ads in florida as early as January 20th, 9 whole days before the primary. Hillary did not announce she was holding an event after the primary was finished until January 27th. She held to the rules - he broke em.
May 21, 2008 11:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary held two fundraisers in Florida in the days before the primary. I'd say that violates the spirit of the pledge a good deal more than Obama's national ad buy.
May 22, 2008 6:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. She hardly has clean hands on the question of whether someone engaged in any campaigning in FLA
May 22, 2008 9:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
The spirit of the agreement ALLOWED fundraising in Fl as long as it was a closed to the public and a non-campaign event. DUH. No such allowance for intentionally running ads in FL regardless of whether they are national or local.
worng wrong wronf
May 22, 2008 10:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
nice try BUT while the Dem who sponsored the bill supported moving up the primary date from where it usually was in MARCH, there was no specific date set when he supported moving the primary date up. That was without the knowledge that the date would be moved up in final legislation to violate the dem party rules. Republicans in FL have almost 2 to 1 in the legislature and a republican governor who were all too happy to see the dems get screwed.
May 21, 2008 10:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Florida Democratic members of the state leg voted for moving the primary, knowing full well it would violate the DNC rules for the parties nomination process. If it was completely beyond the control of the Florida Democratic party and the Florida Democratic legislators to stop the move, they could have made a petition to he DNC, through the rules, to get sanction for the new date, which NV and SC did after FL and MI violated the rules. They did none of that. If you want to blame anyone for violating the rules and putting their Democratic voters out in the cold, then put it where it belongs. With the Florida Democrats. Same goes for Michigan.
May 21, 2008 7:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fl election date is set by state law so the dems have no option to change it after the fact. The DNC gave them 30 days to change their date and florida could not. South Carolina moved their date up. Problem solved. Why are we discounting 1.7 million voters again? Spite? Petulance?
And if this election has shown anything it's that later states can be exciting too. I don't think this is going to create a rush for everyone to move their primaries to October.
May 21, 2008 7:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
dijamo's method for this thread and others: Come in late, repeat non factual assertions , never respond to the clarifying points made [FL democratic legislators introduced and overwhelmingly voted for changing the primary date, which went against them with the DNC knowing they were 'pretending' that it was the nasty republicans who did this], segue off on another flame.
Just stay in your disconnect, dijamo, and you can sit alone polishing your vicious points without reality troubling you.
May 21, 2008 8:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
i think I've addresed all your points...any other concerns?
May 21, 2008 10:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Valiant effort, but to no avail.
Jonestown has officially blessed the NH primary despite its irregularities -- and despite the fact that the GOP stripped NH, FL and MI of half of their delegates for violating their rules. There's no point in arguing dogma.
Thanks to the Koolaide brigade, the Democratic party has forfeited any moral authority it had on the issue of voter suppression.
May 21, 2008 8:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think we all need to take a step back and realize there are serious issues at stake in this election, and serious differences between the candidates. And we will argue about them, as we should. But it should remain an argument among friends; each of us struggling to hear our conscience, and heed its demands; each of us, despite our differences, united in our great cause, and respectful of the goodness in each other.
Now is time for solutions. John McCain will put the national interest ahead of partisanship, he will work with anyone who sincerely wants to get this country moving again. If John McCain is elected President, the era of the permanent campaign will end. The era of problem solving will begin.
John McCain 2008
Official Web Communicator
May 21, 2008 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL
May 21, 2008 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where is the bullshit coming from?
May 21, 2008 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
John McCain's website:
http://www.johnmccain.com/ActionCenter/BlogInteract/BlogInteract.aspx
They get campaign points for posting this garbage
May 21, 2008 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the link. That's pretty entertaining. Copy-paste talking points. All the salience, none of the sentience.
May 21, 2008 6:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for contacting TrollCritic 3000 - a division of the TrollCritic 3000 Foundation.
As we have not received an official McCain 2008 Trolling Pro/Am Tournament scoresheet, I cannot provide your estimated Action Points scale. As soon as we receive one of the official scoresheets I'll pop back and let you know how many Action Points I'm guessing you'll get for this performance. It doesn't quite mesh with my current TrollTracker 9000 scoresheet, so I'm afraid I'm unable to rate your performance at this time using either metric.
Thank you for your continued support, My Friend.
May 21, 2008 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
TrollCritic, you are officially the best part of my day
May 21, 2008 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you TrollCritic.
I can tell by your comment that you understand that there are serious issues at stake in this election.
I appreciate you and I may have serious differences between which candidate we support. We will no doubt argue about them, as we should. But it should remain an argument among friends.
Alas, that argument will have to wait for another day, however, but I rest assure that you understand now is time for solutions. Just know, John McCain will put the national interest ahead of partisanship. The era of problem solving will begin!
John McCain 2008
Official Web Communicator
May 21, 2008 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
go fuck yourself friend
May 21, 2008 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think TrollCritic3000 and My Friends are the same person!
May 21, 2008 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Um, no. If kind reader mistakes Your Humble Critic's political leanings at this stage of events for those of McCain's Pandersol Ointment, then I'm afraid there's little hope left for us all ;)
May 21, 2008 6:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
And I'm sorry to tell you, My Friend, that TPM, nor the Election Central sub-site, are available on the Blog/News Site Scoring Dropdown on the McCain's 2008 Trolling Pro/Am Tournament tracking site at this time.
I'm afraid your perfomance, and all points you hoped to achieve, are Officially Forfeit.
Best of luck in your efforts.
May 21, 2008 6:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
As you can see sir, I am quite sincere. Points mean nothing to me. Not when there are so many serious issues at stake in this election.
It's time to stop the infighting this political season has seen so much of. If John McCain is elected President, the era of the permanent campaign will end!
John McCain will work with anyone who sincerely wants to get this country moving again. Let the era of problem solving will begin!
John McCain 2008
Official Web Communicator
May 21, 2008 6:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is time fellow citizens, to copy & paste our serious way to BLOG SITE VICTORY 08!
"If I am elected President, I will work with anyone who sincerely wants to get this country moving again."
"If I'm elected President, the era of the permanent campaign will end. The era of problem solving will begin. I promise you, from the day I am sworn into office until the last hour of my presidency, I will work with anyone, of either party, to make this country safe, prosperous and proud. And I won't care who gets the credit."
MCCAIN 08 — We 'get' the web and all its blog sites, which are belong to us! (See? That is called a meme on the internet. Over and out!)
May 21, 2008 6:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's trying to clog our tubes. :(
May 21, 2008 8:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is this the same John McCain who's campaign is staffed by lobbyists?
Oh, I thought it was.
We don't need any Republicans here!
Jeffrey Pierce
May 21, 2008 10:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
McCain will fight for all of us! Of course, and "yes he can!"
How may he do that, my friends?
Bone simple: You just take every side of every issue, depending on who you are talking to!
John McCain offers the no hassle campaign alternative: He can debate himself, and he never loses!
(BTW: Has anybody seen that darned "maverick"??? Did he disappear after the Keating 5, or was it after his lip-lock support for Bush in 00 after being swift-boated by him? Gosh, I just haven't seen that maverick since... .)
May 21, 2008 10:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
TheRealFish,
excellent points.
McCain is not the Maverick he claims to be, just your classic corrupt Republican who is beholden to the lobbyists!
Jeffrey
May 22, 2008 1:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
There's plenty of good Republicans who also feel betrayed by the corporate RINOs and assorted crooks running their party. And lots of good Indies too.
People don't have to agree on everything to agree both parties need change and there are too many corporate sell-outs and phonies.
Obama represents a change away from pandering, DINOs and RINOs. He's for honest debate on real issues and bipartisanship on common issues. Not the usual partisan rhetoric, wedge issues, or games.
So, you should make that distinction and not disparage all Republicans, certainly not "Main Streeters" who are usually pragmatic decent people. Otherwise, you're not representing Obama and his supporters at all.
May 22, 2008 4:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think somebody just got some tasty tasty points!
May 21, 2008 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
In this time of uncertainty, it's critical that we all follow our conscience and come together for the good of our beloved Country. For all of us, that means being afraid of having a scary black man for president. It's time to let your racism and prejudice have free rein in your minds and hearts.
The solutions to our problems lie in being afraid. Afraid of people that are different than us. Afraid of liberals who want to feed the poor, and heal the sick. But, most of all, afraid of change. Change that will take us away from the successful policies and actions of President George Bush.
John McCain 2008
Official Web Communicator
May 21, 2008 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
My Friends,
McCain is just your classic corrupt Republican politician who is beholden to corporate America. His campaign is staffed predominantly by current or former lobbyists. His rich, heiress, vicoden popping wife is no better(she won't release her tax returns).
Please go back to the cesspool with your other fellow Republicans. You Republicans are the scum of the country.
Regards,
May 22, 2008 2:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Another post from our "friends" at Rent-A-Troll, LLC.
May 22, 2008 2:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
kozmik,
exactly, RentATroll is definitely an apt description for this deranged Republican(Myfriends). He is just trying to stir up trouble in our party. The Republicans want to create a rift between the Obama and Clinton camps. We cannot let scum like Myfriends - and the other Republicans - divide us!!
I would venture to say that most of the trolls on here are low life Republicans.
Jeffrey
2008 IS THE AGE OF THE DEMOCRATS!!
May 22, 2008 2:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary who?
May 21, 2008 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
She is an absolute nightmare! Will she never stop? She is really messing up this primary for the dems.
May 21, 2008 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, because SHE is casting all those votes. If Obama claims he can bring the nation together, let him bring the party together first. You think the Republicans will be more willing to cooperate than Hillary? Give me a break.
May 21, 2008 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe he'd have an easier time bringing the party together if Hillary wasn't out everyday screaming that he's a misogynist, he's stealing the election from her, and he wants to disenfranchise everyone in FL and MI.
May 21, 2008 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do I think Republicans, on average, might be more willing to compromise than HRC?
Actually, yes.
May 21, 2008 6:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
What a narcissistic piece of work.
She knew the rules, signed the pledges even gave interviews stating the 2 states wouldn't count.
She isn't going to prevail, she's only hurting the her supporters by continuing the charade.
May 21, 2008 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
If I were the Democratic Party leader of either Florida or Michigan, I would think seriously about calling her and saying, "Listen, Hillary, really: You're giving our state a bad name."
May 21, 2008 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oddly enough this was all predicted in this spoof video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6Lstkiexhc
May 21, 2008 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Frighteningly prescient. I'm repulsed, but I can't look away.
May 21, 2008 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Favorite Lines:
"I will fuck you in half!"
"Hurrican Katrina could have made a better campaign staff."
"My supporters are the dumbest fucks in the country."
"The voters have stolen my nomination."
May 21, 2008 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
"You idiots couldn't make it look like an accident if you ran over a kitten!"
May 21, 2008 6:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for that. LOL.
May 21, 2008 9:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's what Axelrod said according to Ben Smith at Politico:
May 21, 2008 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do you seriously think that Hillary would comply with any compromise that the Obama campaign would agreed to? She turned down the 49/59 split in her favor offered by the state of MI It will have to be all her all the time or she will pitch a fit on the floor of the convention.
May 21, 2008 5:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course they won't agree to any compromise. The minute MI and FL are settled...her campaign is OVER.
May 21, 2008 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
How can Senator Clinton's campaign also "go more than half way" and why should Obama's? Doesn't anyone listen to what they say? Words matter.
May 21, 2008 5:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Doesn't anyone pay attention to the order in which things are said or written anymore?
Sure seems like Axelrod was talking about working to achieve a compromise, not going more than halfway. If you must be hypertechnical, at least be accurate.
May 21, 2008 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Holy shit! She's come back now more goddamn times than Michael in Halloween and Halloweens II, III, IV, V and VI.
May 21, 2008 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually Michael Myers doesn't appear in Halloween II.
May 21, 2008 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
it's really cute how you read every single thing I write.
and then emphasize it for me. ;)
May 21, 2008 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
It was Haloween III actually with the Silver Shamrock crap instead of Michael Meyers.
May 21, 2008 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's is correct. Halloween III: The Year of the Witch = No Mike Myers
May 21, 2008 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fair enough, but Michael Myers WAS in Cat In The Hat.
May 22, 2008 3:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Michael, Jason, Freddy Krueger, Dr. Phibes, 1960s Christopher Lee Dracula, and Gidget, all rolled into one relentlessly Nixonesque package.
May 21, 2008 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hi, tena. yes. It's kind of like, just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water...
May 21, 2008 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
What does this mean? Is "in reality" necessary here? Is there a nuance I'm missing?
May 21, 2008 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
As opposed to the Hilloverse where her supporters live. The magical land where the laws of mathematics are really more like guidelines, goal posts have wheels, presidential selection is based on whose turn it is, and liberal Supreme Court justices are immortal.
May 21, 2008 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Touché.
May 21, 2008 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's good, huh?
May 21, 2008 7:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
She seems to be constitutionally incapable of going gracefully. A big character flaw, this. Indeed it's ugly. Even Mike Huckabee was able to do better!
May 21, 2008 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am tired of her being described as "a fighter."
She is not, she is "a sore, despiteful loser."
May 21, 2008 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly!
May 21, 2008 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
A good Obama VP choice:
Jim Webb
Obama/Webb 08
May 21, 2008 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
She's laying the groundwork for an independent run. Just you watch...
May 21, 2008 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
And who is the winner in that scenario?
John McCain.
May 21, 2008 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm from Connecticut and was active with the Lamont campaign for Senate. I was caught by surprise when, following his loss in the primary election, Lieberman declared an independent run. To me, Clinton's actions and similar sense of entitlement lead me to suspect (to FEAR) she'll run as an independent. I bet she's privately considering it.
May 21, 2008 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
She's already lining up her horses. He's rallying the women to her cause, playing up the sexism from the mean male voters and MSM, and her constant shout outs to the WHITE working class voter isn't by accident. From there she'll try to claim the center, pushing Obama far left and McCain to the right and along with playing them off of each other will say "Vote for me. I am the happy medium".
May 21, 2008 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
And she'll lose.
And McCain will win.
And America will continue riding the same handbasket to Hades that is the transportation/destination of choice of the Bush Administration.
May 21, 2008 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Added to which, if she does attempt a third-party run, single-handedly and unambiguously ensuring a McCain victory, it will give the Democratic Party all the excuse it will ever need to cut her loose for good.
May 21, 2008 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did someone just forget to tell her that this was the year for the Republicans to melt down?
May 21, 2008 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where is she going to get the money for this Independent campaign?
May 21, 2008 5:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, there is all that Clinton Library money they've got squirreled away
May 21, 2008 8:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was just asking myself yesterday if she would do that. What would that make it then, 5 parties vying for President (Dems, GOP, Nader, Barr and Hill)?
May 21, 2008 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Amityville Horror..."For God Sakes Get Out!"
May 21, 2008 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Almost time for the taser . . .
May 21, 2008 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it's past time for the Elephant gun and the rhino darts.
May 21, 2008 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yup.
May 21, 2008 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gut-check time for the superdels.
May 21, 2008 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
It ain't over until Bill n Hill are so far in debt they can't go on. This is their last shot at the WH, and they know it. I admire their tenacity but that's about all I admire of them anymore.
May 21, 2008 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Shouldn't they be approaching that at some point?
And another question: how far can she push this and go back to the Senate comfortably?
May 21, 2008 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unfortunately, they are financing ill-thought "tenacity" with other people's money.
Mind you, her contributors deserve what they get. But if I was one of the vendors she owed, I'd be calling the media.
May 21, 2008 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
No shit, Sherlock. So would I.
I wonder if UC Davis clammed up cause they finally got paid?
May 21, 2008 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Quick Google shows that, yes, UC-Davis and other colleges and universities she owed for venue rental and other items have been paid.
May 21, 2008 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have little doubt the same money men who've threatened Pelosi and Dean, tried to buy SD votes and endorsements and who tried to privately finance a Michigan re-vote will end up paying off any debts the Clintons personally come away with from their loans to their campaign.
May 21, 2008 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bingo, that. The group "WomenCountPAC" which put an ad in USAToday and is getting as much media attention as they like (e.g., on NPR today) is an Astroturf organization formed by neigbors and friends of Amy Rao, one of the signatories to the Pelosi and Dean letters. There are others, all connected to the same crew of big money Hillary donors, all formed for the sole purpose of stoking Hillary's "misogyny" and "sexist" themes.
May 21, 2008 6:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
She is also so incredibly good at giving her enemies what they want. She mucked up healthcare by angering Democrats she needed on her side, and Republicans roasted her. She stood by Bill for all those years for purely political reasons, opening her to the charge of doing anything to get elected. She lies so easily about Tuzla or not counting the Michigan vote.
It's really astounding how there seems to be an inherent need in Hillary Clinton to give the people who hate her ample ammunition and proof of what they claim to be her biggest flaws.
How anyone with an ounce of integrity and honesty could support her is truly beyond me.
May 21, 2008 5:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope Howard Dean speaks up about this. He is very underrated. he was a very strong governor for Vermont. I know he couldn't be a Hillary backer.
May 21, 2008 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's a modest man, with much to be modest about.
May 21, 2008 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do you notice the contradiction in these two statements?
"I hope Howard Dean speaks up about this. He is very underrated."
Howard Dean has handled this situation disastrously, in large part because he has NOT been speaking up about it. He's allowed Clinton to drive the narrative when it was the decision of the organization HE LEADS in the first place. Weak.
May 21, 2008 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
He should have been driving the narrative all along. That's what a leader does. And I love his outspoken, off-the-cuff 50-state-strategy pugnacity. I have to assume that someone's got something on him, to keep him being so ineffectual.
May 21, 2008 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
What nonsense.
Dean, nor any chair is suppose to throw the nomination process on its head to help a particular candidacy. IF Dean tried to tip the scales in any direction there would be howls that the game is rigged (not that it would stop the Taylor Marsh's of the world form doing so regardless).
The Democratic party has gone a long way to purging itself of machine politics in the past few decades and towards the underlying democratic principles with which the party is supposed to be a champion of.
May 21, 2008 7:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why do you assume that because people think he ought to do "something" to resolve the situation, that they are saying he ought to do it in favor of a particular candidate?
Keep working that telepathy module, it's still got a few kinks in it.
May 21, 2008 8:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
PS if it's not seen as equitable to all concerned parties, it doesn't count as a "solution".
May 21, 2008 8:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
He should have been driving the narrative all along. That's what a leader does. And I love his outspoken, off-the-cuff 50-state-strategy pugnacity. I have to assume that someone's got something on him, to keep him being so ineffectual.
May 21, 2008 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whatever you want to say about Howard Dean, there's a few things you must remember.
(1) There really isn't much he can do, other than state the DNC's position and broker a deal as best he can. No party chairman really has much power, especially when dealing with the most powerful family in the party.
(2) Dems need to get off Dean's back and start backing him up instead. This guy is the same guy whose 50-state strategy not only got back Congressional control, but has put us in position to claim near-supermajorities this election cycle. McAuliffe, Rendell, etc. - our immediate past DNC chairmen - never accomplished anything like what Dean has, congressionally speaking.
(3) Note that, by not getting more personally involved in the FL/MI situation, Dean is now set up better to help resolve the issue. He couldn't do that if he was seen to be intervening at all, which could easily be (mis)taken as some sort of partisan gesture.
May 21, 2008 6:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Spot on. All points.
And isn't it interesting that the two immediate past DNC chairmen (Terry and Ed) who were so inept are now affiliated with a losing campaign?
May 21, 2008 11:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please, drop the Dean bashing.
As DNC chair, Dean cannot order anyone out of the race. All he can do is suggest and make a case about what's best for the party, which he has done.
It's pretty clear that there is a lot of bad blood between Dean and the Clintons. First they drafted Wes Clark as their DLC stalking horse in the 2004 primary. They fought against him becoming the chair of the DNC, and were trying to have him ousted when the 2006 elections came along and vindicated his 50 state policy. The Clintons tried their mightiest to get rid of Dean prior to this election, in favor of, no doubt, someone who would closely resemble Terry Mac. Had they succeeded, their Terry Mac II would have been on every talk show for the past 3 months, pushing for Obama to drop out of the race. Kind of like DNC (DLC) chair Ron Brown did on Bill's behalf in '92, never missing an opportunity to talk about how Jerry Brown needed to drop out of the race.
From my perspective, all things considered, it's to Howard Dean's credit that he hasn't played the role of this or that candidate's bitch, unlike Brown and Terry Mac did as DNC chair. Dean certainly must be tempted, often, to slam Hillary and her hopeless quest, given their past history. But it's best that he doesn't. I think he's struck the right balance by communicating to the supers that they should not allow this to drag on to the convention. If they follow his advice this will be over within a few weeks. Should she continue to screech about taking it to the convention, we might see a blunter message from Dean, but unless and until that happens, it's in the best interests for party unity for Dean to remain neutral.
May 21, 2008 6:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bingo.
May 21, 2008 7:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I second Lestat's "Bingo," but also suggest that the time to be "blunter" is drawing nigh.
The Zimbabwe thing this afternoon was waaaaaay beyond the pale.
Dean and the Rules Committee should be very, very offended.
May 21, 2008 11:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary for the Zombie Czar!
HRC's campaign is now officially undead.
May 21, 2008 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Shopping list:
-silver bullets
-wooden stake & mallet
-string of garlic
-large crucifix
-voudoun priestess
May 21, 2008 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hi Tena!!
You left off:
pitchforks
torches
May 21, 2008 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hi - It's lovely to see you, four legs.
Wish I could make it to Austin, but I think that weekend is going to be Mr. Tena's only window to get out of here -
May 21, 2008 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
-tactical nuclear weapons.
May 21, 2008 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.amazon.com/Zombie-Survival-Guide-Complete-Protection/dp/1400049628/ref=pd_bbs_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211405306&sr=8-2
May 21, 2008 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, she can.
May 21, 2008 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes troll can.
ID thief!
Dems in 08 - no more mcsame.
Period.
May 21, 2008 6:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Was there any doubt?
May 21, 2008 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just sit them.
Sit them as is, if it makes her happy.
Obama still wins, and we don't have a convention fight.
I don't see what the problem is. MI and FL have been denied the chance to decide the election, there is no reason to bring this to the floor.
Seat them and move on.
May 21, 2008 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
well, no, because that would be appeasement
can't have that
May 21, 2008 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you give in and sit them, the pledged delegate count will be less than 100. From there she'll make the point that since pledged delegates are not really pledged and can vote their conscience and since the difference is so little that the only fair result is to take the vote right to the convention floor.
Giving her exactly what she wants is playing into her hands. You need to keep the pledged delegate difference as big as possible.
And given that Haim Saban tried to buy super delegate votes for $1M, he could probably buy 50 pledged delegate votes for a lot less.
May 21, 2008 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
The truth is sitting them the way they are now would be terrible for the party.
All 50 states would move their primary's up, up and up again until we are voting in February of 2010.
There are rules. If you break the rules, you get punished. Case closed.
May 21, 2008 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama broke the rules of the 4-state plege by placing TV ads that ran in FL.
May 21, 2008 5:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, no, he didn't run ads in Florida. He bought some national ads that appeared all over the U.S., apparently those ran in FL too, but you'd have been hard-pressed to find them on TV if, as I do, you live in FL.
By the way, saw him in Tampa today. I do believe that selecting Obama for our president is the first step in healing this nation.
May 21, 2008 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rules are rules.
The rules said no campaigning in Florida, which includes running no ads in Florida. There was no 'national ad' exception.
Rules are rules, except, of course, when they would be applied to the Senator from Jonestown.
May 21, 2008 8:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unfortunately, this is the democratic party and you are waaaaay oversimplifying the rules. There are rites by which you can exorcise the demons of "advertising to the forbidden primary" - they involve chickens, lambs blood, a written notification to the DNC (and approval from same), and then an ingratiating dance to the offended parties - in this case SC I believe. Finally when SC gives you 5 goats and a camel(or maybe it's the other way around?), the Ads are OK fine as long as they also meet several other requirements. BTW: By interesting coincidence, I think Hillary might owe some town in Kenya 5 goats and a camel(get in line brother!)
I may be off on a few of the details, but apparently Obama did all of this before the ads aired and got everyone's blessing. If he missed a step, I understand there will be some awkward nonsense at the next equinox that is probably best left off you-tube.
In contrast, Hillary simply pledged that the votes in FL and MI wouldn't count. A far less complex strategy to be sure. She didn't even draw a pentacle of protest before the votes were taken - so she has little room to complain now. Geez if you can't follow the rules, don't throw the kitchen sink(or somethin).
(Disclaimer: I learned everything I know about the DNC rules from bloggers :-)
May 21, 2008 11:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do you REALLY believe that that will be the end of it?
May 21, 2008 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Won't she then turn around and say "Seat my FL/MI delegates? Great. Then give me the popular vote from FL/MI too." And make the play that she now has the official party seal of approval on her fuzzy math.
May 21, 2008 5:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly.
What is Obama scared of?
She is fighting to get their votes counted in this joke they call an election.
She is fighting for democracy.
Obama is on the wrong side of this fight.
Where is the unity?
Just BS?
May 21, 2008 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is not about democracy. This is about the Democratic Party's rules. They can be whatever they want them to be. If they had been winner-take-all like the GOP would you be complaining that Hillary won by undemocratic means? I wonder.
May 21, 2008 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hate to feed the trolls, but she's fighting for herself and nothing else.
May 21, 2008 6:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder if Obama feels like the Sorcerer's Apprentice, chopping up the broomstick, only to have two spring up in its place.
May 21, 2008 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, it's really not his fight at this point, the DNC needs to resolve this. He needs to consider whatever compromise is proposed, but it's not his problem to solve. The problem rests in the DNC's lap to resolve and the larger consequences, if it is not resolved satisfactorily, will fall upon the Party.
May 21, 2008 7:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's hoping the remaining Supers read this and cut it off quickly.
May 21, 2008 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Never underestimate the havoc one very bad person can wreak on our country's last chance for change.
Hillary '08 - Because It's Her Turn
May 21, 2008 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent! The Clinton campaign also rolled out their new theme song today! See the presser here!
The video is available on http://youtube.com/watch?v=Sep27sMmG-0
May 21, 2008 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Actually Michael Myers doesn't appear in Halloween II."
Wow, you're even wrong in your offhand comments.
Michael Myers is in practically every frame of Halloween II. You're thinking of Halloween III.
Now, if I was a FOX news commentator, I'd also find some way to make a joke about the fact that that one is subtitled "Season of the Witch".
May 21, 2008 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Four State Pledge (pdf)
May 21, 2008 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well you can't let a little thing like a signed pledge slow you down when you're hell bent on something.
May 21, 2008 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=19188859
HILLARY CLINTON 10-10-07: "It's clear: This election they're having [MICHIGAN PRIMARY] is not going to count for anything. I personally did not think it made any difference whether or not my name was on the ballot," she said.
========================================
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88165077
Morning Edition, March 13, 2008 · Hillary Clinton says the results of Michigan's Democratic presidential primary should count, even if Barack Obama's name did not appear on the ballot.
"That was his choice," she says in an interview with Steve Inskeep. "There was no rule or requirement that he take his name off the ballot. His supporters ran a very aggressive campaign to try to get people to vote uncommitted."
May 21, 2008 6:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
At least she's showing voters what kind of President she would be. Obviously, she's so craven for power that rules and laws don't apply to her ... even if she's already agreed to them. Just like Dubya, she would do everything under the sun to centralize and expand the powers of the POTUS.
May 21, 2008 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Every time she opens her mouth, I feel the need to yell at her and call her B---h.
She knows that her attempt to champion, the idea, that it is so wrong, to not allow the delegates to seat, and then she openly suggests that those voters will be hurt and will not vote.
No thanks to her constant harping
Then when she's confronted openly about her cheap political trick, to portray OBAMA as standing in the way of these, States voters FLA, Michigan
To Hillary: calling you a B---h, is not meant as a gender smear, I'd much rather the media would call you AS- ---E,
Rather than a gender smear, it is a term to recognize your attitude.
It is not that your a fighter, as George W kept saying in his term in office, the term B---h is the synonym, of an obstinate and Stubborn, my way or the highway, Woman, who would ruin if she cannot Rule.
I knew of Mother Theresa, and you Hillary, are not her.
May 21, 2008 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can someone seriously address what this is supposed to accomplish.
Does she really think making the vote totals closer will give her some added leverage with the superdelegates and that they will now by a 3 to 1 margin come to her?
Does she just want the added leverage of an even closer final result?
Is she thinking cynically about 2012--undercut Obama now even though his victory is inevitable. Pick up a few more chits from FL and MI honchos?
Is she trying to create a legacy for herself as the person who will never ever quit? (and isn't there a time when stopping is actually the more honorable thing to do--like when the game is over?)
Do she think that fighting for the working people really means fighting against your own party instead of the people who are not inclined to represent them at all?
Given the current pledged delegate math, given that the Super-D's already showed they are going to move to Obama (and certainly not to her, let alone at a 3-1 clip), what on earth is this all about? Seriously.
May 21, 2008 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've been asking the same thing for days. What the hell is she really doing here?
May 21, 2008 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
She's staying alive, staying alive!!
Seriously, she's just trying to stay in the game. If they give in to this blackmail she'll just think of something else.
No way she's bowing out gracefully. Or at all.
Someone is going to have to put a horsehead in her bed.
May 21, 2008 5:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're right, four legs - every single time she forces another concession out of Obama's campaign and the party, she revs up for another one.
It's like appeasing a terrorist, for all love!
May 21, 2008 6:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Indeed. She has said she thinks there will be a nominee by June. So what logical basis does she taking this to the convention? Does she think they will overturn the selection of a presumptive nominee? What will she gain by doing this?
May 21, 2008 5:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
She's fanning the flames of grievance among her diehard supporters to try to maximize her bargainning position.
"I'm on a noble quest to keep Michigan and Florida from being disenfranchised, the boys are trying to push me out before its over, I'm losing because the media is sexist, you've been called horrible names and treated meanly for standing up for me and I thank you . . ."
She's been doing it for the last two or three weeks in ever more explicit terms. Its what she has to do to try to keep them from seeing the futility and moving to Obama, as Gallup, and her internals, show they've been doing. It's all about hanging on to as many chips as she can.
The real unanswered question is what the fuck is it that she really wants to buy with those chips?
And yeah, diehards, that's all you are to her at this point.
May 21, 2008 7:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, exactly. What is she trying to get?
Mind you even with 48-49% of the delegates, and without all the histrionics, she is in a good bargaining position. In a real democracy it's never winner take all (unless you are Cheney). But why make such an indefensible case ("we won the popular vote")
May 21, 2008 11:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't pretend to know what she wants. But I hope, if it's the vice presidency, Obama has the good sense to say, "No."
As my boss said yesterday, that would portend the only time in history that, when the VP came to a meeting with the President, she was searched for weapons. He also suggested Obama might well employ a taste-tester.
I seriously wonder if it might be that she wants to fill the next opening on the Supreme Court.
I'd entertain that.
May 21, 2008 11:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
If she gets anything beyond a personal escort back to NY, I will seriously question his political judgment.
May 22, 2008 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Who is she talking to with crapola like this? It's making the SDs nervous I'm sure. Why can't she just say, "I'm letting the process play out until the end of the primary calendar for the sake of my supporters," and leave it at that? Why does she have to keep coming back with these absurd, insulting lines, like 'If you only count THESE states, then I win,' or 'If you go by the popular vote I win' (even though she isn't ahead and was never ahead by the popular vote? God it's infuriating.
May 21, 2008 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Obamatons seem to be melting down because they sense their position/candidate is morally bankrupt. They are supporting a candidate who is behind in the popular vote and who is only ahead in pledged delegates because he's disenfranchised the voters of Florida and Michigan. He's also the candidate who's made money more important than ever to the political process, and who is now threatening to go back on his word and forgo public financing in the general election - something that even Bush would not do. Talk about sleazy - Obama is the King of Sleaze.
May 21, 2008 8:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary takes this fight to the convention and let's say the Democratic candidate loses. I can't see how Hillary wouldn't spend the rest of her career and life being considered an even bigger creep than Ralph Nader.
May 21, 2008 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
What does this do besides alienate FL & MI against Dems in the general? Does anyone really think that FL & MI won't be seated??
This along with her whipping up the gender & race divisions make me really think she is sabotoging the general.
She won't run as an independent. It would be career suicide. She can't win, she will split the dem vote and McCain will win. Dems will NEVER forgive her and her career will over. She also won't be able to raise enough money.
She is having trouble now and she won't have the backing of the DNC. Even as an independent she is subject to the same financing rules.
May 21, 2008 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
However primary donations and GE donations are seperate, meaning she could go back to all her primary maxed out donors. And since it's only a four month campaign she could probably easily raise the $80M of public financing McCain will be playing with. And then Haim Saban and co could start an "unaffiliated" 527 group to support her cause.
May 21, 2008 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wouldn't she have to appeal on a state by state basis to even get her name on the ballot as an Independent. It would be impossible for her to get the financing, let alone the time to do so. Correct me if I'm wrong here.....
May 21, 2008 5:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Every time Hillary makes her case...I feel like it's a kick in the crotch. It is a nightmare, she is relentless and it has to stop! I want to work hard for Obama and not feel drained by this constant "pant suit" monster!
May 21, 2008 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can someone seriously address what this is supposed to accomplish.
If Obama loses the GE, Hillary is likely the shoe-in Democratic Candidate for 2012 if she makes it seem as though her and Obama fought to a virtual draw this election.
May 21, 2008 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nope. It's over. She will never win. Not in 2008, not in 2012, not in her crazy-ass alternate universe. She has burned too many people.
May 21, 2008 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
2012 is a long way off and there are infinite possibilities that could occur between now and then. She's a fool.
May 21, 2008 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think Hillary would be favored in 2012. If Obama loses in the fall, much of the blame will land at her feet, whether she deserves it or not. She would be 4 years older, and it would be a tough go.
At first I thought there was no way Clinton could become the Democratic nominee in 2012, but upon reflection, I'm not so sure. Perhaps her best longshot at becoming president may be to emulate Ted Kennedy and challenge a sitting Democratic president: if Obama had a rough, Carter-esque first term, her close run this time could be a real leg up within the party, as Reagan's '76 challenge to Ford helped set the stage for his 1980 campaign. If she's blamed for helping defeat Obama, she'd have a hard time, but if he wins but struggles in office, Hillary could have a serious opening.
I don't see that as a likely scenario, but it seems plausible. I strongly support Obama, and I truly feel he would make a better president right now than Hillary, but I could be wrong. And, even if I'm not wrong, there's much presidents get blamed (or credit) for that's really beyond their control. A worsening economic crisis or energy crisis could cause Obama's ratings to plummet, even if he is doing the best he can with a bad hand.
So you're right, Tena - there are infinite possibilities between now and 2012.
May 21, 2008 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
What are the odds that this ends in a teary-eyed Clinton?
I am married to a woman I love and respect, and I love and respect my momma, my grandmothers, and many other women.
That said, what a fuckin scumbag. Never has someone deserved a public pie to the face more than the senator from NY.
I say this because if there is one thing I hate, It is a person who walks the world blindly thinking that they are special and everyone should kiss their ass.
I don't give a shit about whether or not she is a woman. I give a shit that she is an annoying human being.
Right now she is hovering right above geraldo rivera and allan keys in the most punchable face sweepstakes. But if it helps, she has my vot for that nomination.
May 21, 2008 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
There you go. Hit a woman.
yeah obama!
May 21, 2008 9:58 PM | Reply | Permalink