Obama '08?

You are nit picking and attempting to defend the indefensible. Better to acknowledge the facts and let it go.

I proposed to Sozobe that if the opponents of Obama on this thread (which is labelled simply, "Obama 08?", ostensibly inviting both pro and con commentary) are asked to give up their arguments and "move on" then so should the supporters. What conceivable objection could you have to that????

Re: superdelegates, what I'm most hoping for is that Obama gathers more and more momentum and gets the lead even when superdelegates are included.

Lola, from Frank Rich yesterday:

Quote:

The question now is how much more racial friction the Clinton campaign will gin up if its Hispanic support starts to erode in Texas, whose March 4 vote it sees as its latest firewall. Clearly it will stop at little. That's why you now hear Clinton operatives talk ever more brazenly about trying to reverse party rulings so that they can hijack 366 ghost delegates from Florida and the other rogue primary, Michigan, where Mr. Obama wasn't even on the ballot. So much for Mrs. Clinton's assurance on New Hampshire Public Radio last fall that it didn't matter if she alone kept her name on the Michigan ballot because the vote "is not going to count for anything."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/10/opinion/10rich.html

sozobe wrote:

Re: superdelegates, what I'm most hoping for is that Obama gathers more and more momentum and gets the lead even when superdelegates are included.

CBS has Obama ahead even with superdelegates, if barely, 1,134 (Obama) to 1,131 (Clinton):

http://election.cbsnews.com/campaign2008/d_delegateScorecard.shtml

That's just one though, numbers are still all over the place.

Thanks Soz. I read this article as well as the first one BBB posted. Both articles impressed me, as did Krugman's points, as Cyclo said above, "that most of the attacks I see against him [and I would add her] are based upon opinions which are apparently unsupportable by factual argument." In fact most articles and TV commentary are simply opinion. The examples offered are only examples of a particular author's opinion, stated as fact.

The removal of Doyle, 42, was portrayed as an amicable one initiated by the campaign manager herself. But it gave credence to what some supporters have said for many weeks -- that the campaign had spent too much money yielding too few results and that fresh management and advice are needed for what could be a long battle against Obama.

Doyle did not tell Clinton how rapidly the campaign was burning through money, according to one campaign official, who said Clinton learned about her financial constraints only after the New Hampshire primary on Jan. 8. [..] By some accounts, the campaign's January cash crunch undermined her role as manager, and there were tensions with former president Bill Clinton and some of his loyalists.

One senior official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to speak freely about the campaign's inner workings, said, [..] "There is a sense that this is a fatiguing campaign and some new energy primarily was useful."

..

Williams arrived on what she told friends would be a 30-day assignment to help oversee operations and review the campaign's management. She did not displace Doyle but there was, according to one account, tension between the two.

By one account, Williams decided early last week to return to her consulting firm, her temporary assignment over. By another, she announced that she was leaving to send a signal to Clinton that the dual management structure was untenable.

..

Doyle said in a departing note that she intends to remain on as a senior adviser, and one official said she plans to travel occasionally with the candidate. Her brother Danny Solis, a Chicago alderman who volunteered for Clinton, said in a recent telephone interview that his sister's life in the campaign has been "a struggle." "She spends a lot of time as a referee," he said. "And she takes a lot of the punches."

..

But for all the efforts to expand the operation, Democratic strategists said the Clinton campaign remains opaque, even to those on the outside willing to be helpful. "They have more walls around them than you've seen in many castles," said one prominent Democrat.

Interesting that those who are unable to answer arguments offered contrary to their own, so often seek to silence the opposition. That reveals nothing flattering about them. However, narrow-mindedness, intolerance, and unreasonable fear of disagreement are never flattering.

Lola wrote:

Thanks Soz. I read this article as well as the first one BBB posted. Both articles impressed me, as did Krugman's points, as Cyclo said above, "that most of the attacks I see against him [and I would add her] are based upon opinions which are apparently unsupportable by factual argument." In fact most articles and TV commentary are simply opinion. The examples offered are only examples of a particular author's opinion, stated as fact.

Eh? Are you saying that Frank Rich manufactured the quote?

I really have no doubt that Hillary knew that Obama and Edwards took their names off of the Michigan ballot and that she left hers on; if you want me to find additional sources for that, I'm happy to.

The Clinton campaign team appears to be seriously stressed out:

Quote:

The removal of Doyle, 42, was portrayed as an amicable one initiated by the campaign manager herself. But it gave credence to what some supporters have said for many weeks -- that the campaign had spent too much money yielding too few results and that fresh management and advice are needed for what could be a long battle against Obama.

Doyle did not tell Clinton how rapidly the campaign was burning through money, according to one campaign official, who said Clinton learned about her financial constraints only after the New Hampshire primary on Jan. 8. [..] By some accounts, the campaign's January cash crunch undermined her role as manager, and there were tensions with former president Bill Clinton and some of his loyalists.

One senior official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to speak freely about the campaign's inner workings, said, [..] "There is a sense that this is a fatiguing campaign and some new energy primarily was useful."

..

Williams arrived on what she told friends would be a 30-day assignment to help oversee operations and review the campaign's management. She did not displace Doyle but there was, according to one account, tension between the two.

By one account, Williams decided early last week to return to her consulting firm, her temporary assignment over. By another, she announced that she was leaving to send a signal to Clinton that the dual management structure was untenable.

..

Doyle said in a departing note that she intends to remain on as a senior adviser, and one official said she plans to travel occasionally with the candidate. Her brother Danny Solis, a Chicago alderman who volunteered for Clinton, said in a recent telephone interview that his sister's life in the campaign has been "a struggle." "She spends a lot of time as a referee," he said. "And she takes a lot of the punches."

..

But for all the efforts to expand the operation, Democratic strategists said the Clinton campaign remains opaque, even to those on the outside willing to be helpful. "They have more walls around them than you've seen in many castles," said one prominent Democrat.

georgeob1 wrote:

Interesting that those who are unable to answer arguments offered contrary to their own, so often seek to silence the opposition. That reveals nothing flattering about them. However, narrow-mindedness, intolerance, and unreasonable fear of disagreement are never flattering.

That being so, I'm wondering why, every time I state something that hints I'm not 100% happy with some American thing, you always blame me for British policy in Northern Ireland.

Only joking.

No, I'm saying that in the quote she said "it won't count anyway." This is what everyone thought was the case at the time. They planned to seat those delegates after a nominee was chosen.

But now we have a situation in which the voters may not succeed in choosing the nominee, in which case there is now a problem with what to do about the delegates from Florida and Michigan.

The quote does however document that her name remaining on the ticket was public knowledge. They were all free to leave their names on the ballot as well. I don't know why the others took their's off. But I doubt it has anything to do with being tricked by the Clinton campaign.

Florida and Michigan have been punished in that they didn't get all the media attention and profit that comes with the whole shebang. That's all the DNC intended to do.

Frank Rich makes many more assumptions about the motivations and intentions of the Clinton campaign, none of which can be documented. They are his opinion stated as fact. It's good to know about his opinion, but it's hardly evidence for anything other than that this is what Frank Rich thinks.

I invite everyone in this thread to compare Krugman's original article with Jason Linkin's article about the article. You can then decide for yourself whether Krugman's article was really a screed.

(And besides, I'm having tons of fun imagining georgeob1's face go red as he represses the notion that he might agree with Paul Krugman here.)

real life wrote:

sozobe wrote:

real life wrote:

snood,

first of all he was dealing with the Clintons, so he shoulda known better IMHO

second, no sensible person devises a rule, or expects one to be adhered to that disenfranchises two of the largest states

Quote:

the Dems have put themselves in a position of nominating either a liar or a fool.

what will they choose?

I am of the opinion that it will come down to a brokered convention and neither Hillary or Obama will be nominated

Leaving... who? Gore?

About MI and FL --

The DNC made the decision. Or more to the point -- the DNC warned MI and FL about the consequences of flaunting the rules by moving up the primaries to before February 5th, and MI and FL did it anyway. They then suffered the consequences.

I think it's unfortunate, but I think that MI and FL deserve a big part of the blame, there. They knew moving up their primaries would have this effect -- they moved up the primaries anyway. <shrug>

Once that happened -- between MI, FL, and the DNC -- the candidates all pledged solidarity with the DNC. If Hillary had a problem with disenfranchising those poor MI and FL voters, that was the time to do something about it. That was the time to say, "I want the voters' voices to be heard and I disagree with your decision, DNC."

She didn't.

that's exactly my point, soz

she pledged solidarity with the party, watched all the other candidates remove their names from the ballot, and left hers on there.

she cannot be trusted even by those in her own party.

Obama, on the other hand, could not even see through the smoke and mirrors of the Clinton Triangulation team.

who would want to send him up as our man against the America-haters in the world?

he's not ready for prime time.

How do we know that she "watched all the other candidates remove their names from the ballot?" I haven't seen enough about exactly what happened. Did she secretly keep her name on? How would she have hidden that fact? All the candidates had the option to leave their names on the ballots. I don't think it was a secret.

Four State Pledge Letter 2008
Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina
August 28, 2007

WHEREAS, the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee, along with approval from the full body of the DNC, established the 2008 Presidential nominating calendar in 2005.
WHEREAS, the nominating calendar increases diversity with the early participation of African Americans, Hispanics, Asian Americans, Native Americans and labor members.
WHEREAS, the nominating calendar honors the traditional role of retail politics early in the nominating process.
WHEREAS, the nominating calendar provides geographical balance with contests in the
Heartland, East, South and West.
WHEREAS, it is the desire of Presidential campaigns, the DNC, the states and the American people to bring finality, predictability and common sense to the nominating calendar.
WHEREAS, the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee will strip states of 100% of their delegates and super delegates to the DNC National Convention if they violate the nomination calendar.

THEREFORE, I _____________, Democratic Candidate for President, in honor and in
accordance with DNC rules, pledge to actively campaign in the pre-approved early states Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina. I pledge I shall not campaign or participate in any election contest occurring in any state not already authorized by the DNC to take place in the DNC approved pre-window (any date prior to February 5, 2008). Campaigning shall include but is not limited to purchasing media or campaign advocacy of any kind, attending or hosting events of more than 200 people to promote one's candidacy for a preference primary and employing staff in the state in question. It does not include activities specifically related to raising campaign
resources such as fundraising events or the hiring of fundraising staff.

georgeob1 wrote:

sozobe wrote:

Yes, we know.

We're all kool-aid drinkers.

We don't know better.

We're blinded by the bling that is Obama.

We're in love.

He's bypassed our critical faculties with that ol' Obama magic.

He's cool.

He's hot.

He may or may not make a good president, but who cares? Not us! We just want to see his face on the cover of every magazine and at the top of every newscast.


Does that about cover it? If so, can we maybe move on rather than reiterating it a few times a day?

The truth is one can find the same tiresome sameness in the rhetoric for and against Obama -- and the other candidates as well. I'll agree to move on and abandon it when you do as well.

Not that I am against people's right to post whatever they wish, wherever they wish, but this IS the Obama '08 thread.

If you don't want to see support for him, which will often fall among similar lines as previous exhortations of support for him, don't read the thread.

Cycloptichron

Lola wrote:

No, I'm saying that in the quote she said "it won't count anyway." This is what everyone thought was the case at the time. They planned to seat those delegates after a nominee was chosen.

Well, no. They planned to not seat the delegates at all. Hence not counting.

Quote:

But now we have a situation in which the voters may not succeed in choosing the nominee, in which case there is now a problem with what to do about the delegates from Florida and Michigan.

Again, no. The agreement was that they wouldn't count, at all. That's what the DNC said and that's what Obama, Clinton, and Edwards agreed to. It was only when things got close that Hillary decided to go back on the agreement. That's really the crux of things.

Quote:

The quote does however document that her name remaining on the ticket was public knowledge. They were all free to leave their names on the ballot as well. I don't know why the others took their's off. But I doubt it has anything to do with being tricked by the Clinton campaign.

I don't think it was about being "tricked," either. I think it was just that they took their names off because the primary wouldn't count. It was showing solidarity with the DNC. Hillary failed to do so... but then reasoned that it didn't make any difference one way or another because the votes wouldn't count... but then once the race turned out to be closer than expected, changed her mind.

Quote:

Florida and Michigan have been punished in that they didn't get all the media attention and profit that comes with the whole shebang. That's all the DNC intended to do.

Well, the DNC intended to provide a consequence for breaking rules. That's how consequences work, right? The idea is to prevent something similar from happening in the future. If the DNC "punishes" FL and MI in this way -- first no, then oh I guess so -- in 2012 other states may decide that it's well worth the risk to push their primaries up, too.

Quote:

Frank Rich makes many more assumptions about the motivations and intentions of the Clinton campaign, none of which can be documented. They are his opinion stated as fact. It's good to know about his opinion, but it's hardly evidence for anything other than that this is what Frank Rich thinks.

I provided context, but I bolded the part that was pertinent. You now seem to be agreeing that the bolded part is pertinent.

Other than that, no. As george pointed out, the precedence for this situation is that the two other times this has happened, the delegates were seated at the convention. That (that there had been a precedent) is also what I was told by the fund raising person from the DNC.

There are definitely large-scale issues that keep coming up. But what interests me most about this thread -- and what keeps it fresh -- are all the new twists and turns, and people giving their takes on them and providing new info. What do gay people think about Obama? Should Hillary go after MI and FL at this point? What's the deal with superdelegates? Should they keep their mouths shut until further on in the process? What will happen if superdelegates decide this? Will superdelegates decide this?

Etc.

I love that stuff, keep it coming. I'm more interested in substance than whether the person is for or against Obama. It's the substanceless stuff that gets boring fast.