Ethel2
 
  1  
Mon 11 Feb, 2008 02:14 pm
real life wrote:
Lola wrote:
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.


I didn't say it was secret.

Hillary signed a pledge not to campaign or participate in any election in states that violate the rules:

Quote:
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.

from http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/10/164650/509/500/454101


She did in fact participate in the election by putting her name on the ballot.


We can argue until the cows come home about whether that amounts to "participation." But I could just as well say that Obama was the only Democratic candidate that did national TV ads that were aired in Florida. No one actively campaigned except Obama and Clinton (I don't know about Edwards) did hold closed fund raisers in Florida which were allowed.

I hate the process of splitting hairs about rules and who said what when to make some legalistic determination about who should win, when really both sides are claiming that the idea that favors their candidate is most fair.

The problem remains that we are a divided party and if we don't stop demanding that one side or the other dictate how it will be resolved and start recognizing that it's a problem for all of us to solve, we'll be defeating ourselves and letting down the entire world. If McCain wins, our world relations are going to get much much worse.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Mon 11 Feb, 2008 02:15 pm
The pitiful thing is that the reasons most people vote for a candidate is due to substantlessness--(is that really a word? Oh well, if it isn't it should be)--rather than for anything substantive about the candidate. (I'll not throwing everybody into this vote, but basing this opinion on the usual man-in-the-street interviews and how little the people know about the person they say they'll vote for. The conclusion drawn is that people vote far more out of emotional appeal or partisan identification rather than the merits of a candidate.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Mon 11 Feb, 2008 02:16 pm
except for Obama supporters of course. :wink:
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Mon 11 Feb, 2008 02:19 pm
Butrflynet wrote:
Hillary claims the people in caucus states where she lost are just activists and the people of Lousiana are just energized Black people. She says that's why she lost.

I guess it was a good thing the Suffragettes were just activists too.


http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/02/11/clinton-dismisses-weekend-losses/


Butrflynet, Your link took me to an error page. Can you help?
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Mon 11 Feb, 2008 02:22 pm
Lola wrote:
The plan was to make them wait until after the nominee was chosen.

Well, no, "the plan" was not to "make them wait". The plan was to not seat them at all. The official pledge, signed by Hillary, that Real Life just posted, repeats it in no uncertain words: "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."

Lola wrote:
What is pertinent is that we have a big fat mess on our hands now and there is no fair way to solve it.

Not that big fat a mess - it's quite straightforward. The DNC set the nomination calendar. Agree with it or not, that's its right. When some states made noises about jumping to the front, the DNC set a clear marker: any state that violates the pre-Super Tuesday calendar will be stripped of all its delegates. All candidates endorsed this decision, Hillary included. The Florida and Michigan state parties violated the calendar anyway, knowing full well that if they did so, their state would be stripped of their delegates. They did it anyway, and so their states are stripped of their delegates. End of story.

The fact that the race turns out to be tight doesnt suddenly make this straightforward story a complicated one, or an unfair one.
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Mon 11 Feb, 2008 02:25 pm
Here's the link to the Political Ticker Blog page. That article is currently the first one. It may move further down the page as more blog entries are posted.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

This is the permalink given for it:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/02/11/clinton-dismisses-weekend-losses/

If it still doesn't work, here's a copy and paste of it:


Quote:
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Mon 11 Feb, 2008 02:26 pm
Lola wrote:

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


It's only pertinent in that it demonstrates that it was the fact that her name was on the ballot was public knowledge.

Which is exactly the question I was answering! This one:

Lola wrote:
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.


Quote:
The plan was to make them wait until after the nominee was chosen.


I'm not sure what this means.

The DNC's stated "plan" was to strip MI and FL of their delegates. Period.

Quote:
However, no one anticipated that there would be a protracted dead heat. It was poor judgment by the DNC anyway. Why we can't have a nation wide primary election held on the same day, I don't know. There may be a good reason, but I don't know it.

What is pertinent is that we have a big fat mess on our hands now and there is no fair way to solve it. Both sides have good arguments about why it should be the way they think will best help there candidate, but none are fair to both sides.


Can you provide a good argument for why Hillary should go back on the agreement she made and try to claim MI and FL's delegates after all? ("Because it will help her win" is certainly an argument but not quite what I have in mind.)

Quote:
Maybe they'll get together with the candidates in the Spring and broker an agreement that they'll combine the ticket -- but how it will be determined about who will be the presidential candidate and who will be the vice president, I have no idea. Again there's no fair way out.


If somebody wins decisively, that's a fair way out. If MI and FL have re-dos -- caucuses -- that's not quite fair, but it's better than the "don't count" elections suddenly counting. (Again, I have a cousin in Florida who is an Obama supporter but actually believed her vote wouldn't count and so didn't go -- she won't feel very "enfranchised" if the FL vote counts as-is.)

Quote:
And the result is that half the party will be furious, which ever way we go. It's very likely we're going to lose this election to the Republicans. I'm so disgusted I could spit!


I'm not so sure about that. Obama is doing better than Hillary in head-to-head polls vs. McCain. Obama is gaining momentum and may win decisively enough that this will become immaterial. Nimh has shown that while there are strident partisans on each side, the rank-and-file voters are happy with either Obama or Hillary.

What is most likely to split the party, IMO, is for Hillary to demand that "her" delegates from MI and FL be seated and that's that. It's patently unfair.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Mon 11 Feb, 2008 02:28 pm
(Ah, nimh got there first.)
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Mon 11 Feb, 2008 02:30 pm
Whoopi changes her mind and votes for Hillary


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFtRo3RHpq8
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Mon 11 Feb, 2008 02:30 pm
Found another article that gives fuller quotes on what she said:

http://www.mlive.com/newsflash/index.ssf?/base/politics-1/1202756075272970.xml&storylist=newsmichigan
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Mon 11 Feb, 2008 02:30 pm
Shoot, I messed up the first part of my post. Should be:

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


It's only pertinent in that it demonstrates that it was the fact that her name was on the ballot was public knowledge.


Which is exactly the question I was answering! This one:

Lola wrote:
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.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Mon 11 Feb, 2008 02:31 pm
nimh wrote:
End of story.



You wish.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Mon 11 Feb, 2008 02:48 pm
Butrflynet wrote:



I think this is another good example of the fact that we all make political decisions based on emotions and turn so called "fact" to support our bias.

What Hillary really said, "She said she never expected to do well in any of those contests, even though she had been favored to win Maine. Clinton repeated her criticism that the caucus system is undemocratic and caters mostly to party activists.

She said it is UNDEMOCRATIC because it caters to PARTY (sorry I can't make the bolding and italics work, I'm not really shouting) activists. And it's not democratic, it's the way it used to be done.



Quote:
As for Louisiana, "You had a very strong and very proud African-American electorate, which I totally respect and understand," Clinton said.


What she said above is factual, nothing more. Of course it's a statement of fact that reinforces her point that Obama is not in a position of strength at this time.

She didn't use the word, "just" in either of those statements. Adding the word "just" changes the connotation and indeed the apparent intent of what she said.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Mon 11 Feb, 2008 02:51 pm
sozobe wrote:
Shoot, I messed up the first part of my post. Should be:

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


It's only pertinent in that it demonstrates that it was the fact that her name was on the ballot was public knowledge.


Which is exactly the question I was answering! This one:

Lola wrote:
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.


It doesn't say that she agreed anywhere to take her name off the ballot. Saying she "watched" indicates that she was somehow doing something unfair. They could have left their names on the ballot. We don't really know why they decided to remove their names when it wasn't mandatory. That's what we don't know.
0 Replies
 
Swimpy
 
  1  
Mon 11 Feb, 2008 02:55 pm
Regarding Florida's delegates:

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/erbe/2008/1/30/a-redo-for-florida-democrats.html
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Mon 11 Feb, 2008 02:56 pm
All this talk about the party being so violently torn asunder by this race is a crock of ****.

Just felt the need to say that. Have a nice day.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Mon 11 Feb, 2008 02:57 pm
Whew. OK.

I'm not saying it's unfair that she left her name on the ballot per se -- if she actually thought it wouldn't count, it wasn't a big deal. I didn't get mad at her about it at the time. I thought it was kind of cool and activist of Obama and Edwards to go ahead and take their names off, but I didn't think it was a big deal for her to leave her name on if it was immaterial anyway.

What I think is a big deal is for her to agree to make it immaterial -- agree not to participate, not to campaign, and not to have any delegates from FL or MI seated -- and then go back on her word when it became important for her to have those delegates.

I see only two honorable options. 1) for her to have said at the outset, instead of agreeing to those terms, "I'm sorry but I want to give every voter a voice and so I don't agree to the terms," and hashing things out from there, or 2) once she made the agreement, sticking to the agreement.

Changing course when it's convenient for her is not something I find honorable.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Mon 11 Feb, 2008 02:57 pm
kickycan wrote:
All this talk about the party being so violently torn asunder by this race is a crock of ****.

Just felt the need to say that. Have a nice day.


Oh, I agree.

I mean I disagree. Violently.

Or something.
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Mon 11 Feb, 2008 02:58 pm
HALPERIN'S TAKE: Sixteen Underappreciated Obama Advantages


HALPERIN'S TAKE: 10 Things Clinton Can Do to Survive February
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Mon 11 Feb, 2008 02:58 pm
Lola wrote:

Butrflynet, Your link took me to an error page. Can you help?

It seems to work again now!

From the article:

Quote:
Noting that "my husband never did well in caucus states either," Clinton argued that caucuses are "primarily dominated by activists" and that "they don't represent the electorate, we know that."


To which I will just juxtapose:



And:

Quote:
Updates from the Nebraska Democratic caucuses

9:30 a.m. Everyone is patient, but excitement reigns. [..]

The lines of people switching parties is long. Many said they were Republicans or independents who wanted to have a say in the presidential contest. Others wanted change.

"I'm basically fed up with the Republican debacle of this current system. I'm ready for something new," aaid Valada Powell, a Republican who filled out a form to become a Democrat before caucusing. [..]

9:46 a.m. The line is now about a block at Monroe Middle School and getting longer by the moment. People keep pouring in. [..]

9:51 a.m. It was wall to wall people at the Elkhorn campus of Metro Community College. "I didn't know there were this many Democrats in Nebraska," said Chris Colen, 40. [..]

10:21 a.m. Its time for "Plan B" at Monroe Middle School. The school has been overun with too many people and too little room in the school's auditorium. The plan now is to cuacus in the parking lot. [..]

10:27 a.m. Caucus sites are being overwhelmed across Omaha. Thousands upon thousands have shown up, eager to take part in this historic vote.

At the Elkhorn campus of Metro Community College Campus, the lines are wrapped around the building. [..]

11:17 a.m. At Metro in Elkhorn, "Plan B" was scrapped. An overflow room also became overran. Caucus leaders in Elkhorn are now allowing people to vote by a blue slip. [..]

11:30 a.m. Overrun by crowds, caucus organizers at Monroe Middle School declared a state of emergency. [..]

1:52 p.m. [..] Reports are coming in that the caucus site in Papillion is overhwhelmed. Thousands have turned up, when organized expected only several hundred. They are still registering. Traffic is backed up on Highway 370. [..]

2:06 p.m. [..] Results were expected by 3 p.m., but the crushing crowds and overwhelmed caucuses in both counties have forced officials to move that back 90 minutes.

2:35 p.m. [..] They were overwhelmed and sometimes outnumbered, but Douglas County Democrats say they are pleased.

Kris Pierce, with the Douglas County Democratic Party, says [it] wasn't until the last two weeks that interest in the caucus began to accelerate at warp speed [..]. "We went from expecting 3,000 to being prepared for 27,000 within 10 days" [..].


And:

Quote:
Caucus first-timer finds chaos, satisfaction

Loop, 46, a novelist, had brought her family to experience a Washington state Democratic caucus with her. This was a first for them all [..].

Loop's first-timer experience has been repeated again and again across the country this election season as Americans show new interest in political processes that they have paid little attention to in the past. [..]

This being Seattle, they clutched their Starbucks cups as they joined the throngs. [..] The Democratic party knew to expect record numbers, and Dwight Pelz, the chair of the entire state party, was directing traffic himself. A volunteer boomed into the masses, "Do you know your precinct number?" Loop had no idea, but found a neighbor who did. "What do we do?" asked her husband. "Is this only for Democrats?" [..]

The family slowly made their way into the school's cavernous, but packed lunchroom, where the temperature had risen dramatically from the crush of people. The mood was festive, though, and Loop found at least a dozen friends and neighbors in the varied crowd. Her husband gave out friendly air kisses once they found their precinct table, and joked that booze was all they needed for a real block party. [..]

"It's cool to see absolutely everyone here," she said. [..] Her neighbor, Maggie Elkon, agreed. "This is like from the horse and buggy days!" [..] Jeff Lee, 48, a physician, couldn't believe the crowd was almost as thick even after an hour after the caucus began. [..]


Yep, "dominated by activists" is what these caucuses are...

Forget about all those news stories about record turnouts, often a factor of 2,3, hell, 10 times higher than in previous years.

Forget about the lines of first-time caucusers stretching around blocks, the overfilled venues that are moved and then moved again into larger spaces because of all those new caucusers who had never come before and had no experience.

Forget about the masses of Independent and Republican voters who registered as Democrats at the spot in order to caucus.

It's just "activists", is what it is.

The irony here, of course, is that if the caucuses had really just attracted the trusty party activist faithful, Hillary would have won them. She got her best scores among regular caucus-goers.

It's the fact that the caucuses have drawn in so many new people, so many non-activists, people who havent been particularly politically engaged before, people who werent even registered as Democrats - it's thanks to those that Obama killed Clinton in the caucuses.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Obama 2012? - Discussion by snood
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama '08?
  3. » Page 481
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.2 seconds on 06/29/2025 at 07:17:53