Is Your Candidate Smarter than a 6 Year Old?

In a brief interview conducted in the Senate chambers, Barack Obama responded to Hillary Clinton's contention that the Michigan primary was "fair."

"Look, we're going to abide by whatever the Democratic National Committee determines is fair," he says. "But the important point is ... that we agreed not to participate in this process. Not just me, but Sen. Clinton did as well. If you ask my 6-year-old, should that election count, she would probably be able to figure out that that's not fair."

Of course, while Sasha Obama may think all candidates need to be on the ballot in a fair election, it's not just Hillary Clinton who feels otherwise.  Iran has removed most of the reform candidates in their vote.  The recent Russian election  was held even though most opposition candidates weren't on the ballot.  One candidate elections are considered fair all over the world... in China, Burma, Syria, Turkmenistan, Cuba.  Excellent models all.

Why do candidates in all these places argue for the fairness of elections in which the opposition is excluded?  Because it serves their own self interest to do so.

Update [2008-3-14 23:27:17 by Devilstower]: For those suggesting (either gently or at knife point) that my analogy is over the top, I have to say... I agree with you.  It's not fair to compare Sen. Clinton's actions to those nations where other candidates are forcibly kept from the ballot.  It's a step too far, and I apologize.

That doesn't mean I don't think that Michigan was in any sense fair.

•  If Hillary steals this nomination

  the happiest person will be John McCain

  by aaraujo on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 06:29:36 PM PDT

  •  She can't

    And I think this, combined with the snarkalicious rebuttal to the Clinton email propaganda is showing Obama's new strategy for addressing the Clinton campaign- humor and sarcasm.  I like it, I think it underscores the fundamentally rediculous nature of the Clinton campaign at this point.  You really can't take them seriously without looking rediculous.  Snark on, Senator.

    by nwgates on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 07:41:59 PM PDT

    •  Simple Solution

      Hold another primary in Michigan with only Barack Obama and Dennis Kucinich on the ballot.

      Then use the relative nummbers from the two primaries to determine the apportionment of the Michigan delegates.

      Certainly that would be fair. The first was fair and the second would be fair. QED

      by Ohiobama on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 05:19:12 AM PDT

  •  Guilt by Association

    Let me see if I have this straight:
    Barack Obama takes Barack Obama's name off the Michigan primary ballot.
    Therefore Hillary Clinton steals the nomination.

    We are not talking about a Guardian's Council refusing to let opponents of the Supreme Leader run. If anything, the Democratic National Committee's rule that took away Michigan's and Florida's Florida's delegates comes much closer than anything HRC did.

    The DNC has no legal authority to order the states around. If they had anticipated the nomination contest running this long; they would have at the very least given some leeway for amending the process.

    If McCain wins the election because of disgruntled Michigan and Florida voters, are you prepared to say that obeying the DNC's rules are more important than winning elections????? If not, then start talking sense instead of fetishizing the rules.

    by Judge Moonbox on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 07:58:14 PM PDT

    •  then

      why did she sign a statement saying that she would abide by the rules and not participate in Florida and Michigan?

      What is the purpose of submitting and signing false documents?

      by MFL on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 08:07:01 PM PDT

    •  Step back.

      ALL the candidates promised not to PARTICIPATE in the FL and MI primaries.

      Promised, in writing. Signed.

      They all agreed with the DNC that the primaries held in violation of party rules would not count, and that they would not participate.

      The other candidates removed their names from the MI ballot (they could not from the FL ballot due to deadlines and state law in FL).  

      Hillary did not.

      NOW she states that she participated and that the delegates illegitimately selected should be seated.

      And you want to pretend that Obama just whimsically took his name off the ballot?  

      The DNC has no legal authority to order the states around.

      No, they don't.  And didn't try.  They do however have the absolute right to decide what the rules are for the party.  They can and did decide... and those states CHOSE to move their primaries to dates that violated existing party rules.

      by ogre on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 08:13:36 PM PDT

      •  But is that rule so sacrosanct?

        No, they don't.  And didn't try.  They do however have the absolute right to decide what the rules are for the party.  They can and did decide... and those states CHOSE to move their primaries to dates that violated existing party rules.

        That doesn't answer my question:

        If McCain wins the election because of disgruntled Michigan and Florida voters, are you prepared to say that obeying the DNC's rules are more important than winning elections?????

        I know that realistically, you cannot prove that you would still insist that the rules be obeyed even if the states that violated them were won by Obama; just as I cannot prove that I would oppose the rules if Edwards needed to have them enforced to be nominated. I don't think I've seen anyone even pay lip service to that argument.

        The scenario I'm talking about is this: On November 4, McCain wins with Florida and Michigan giving hmim just enough electoral votes; and the exit polls say that enough disgruntled voters in those two states blame the Democrats and not their state legislatures for their not being seated at the Democratic convention. Do you think the rules are important enough that you would rather have that happen?

        by Judge Moonbox on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:08:32 PM PDT

        •  You're asking whether I care about

          rules and laws.

          Yes.

          They matter.

          FWIW, you're presenting an absurd hypothetical.  From what I've seen, Obama beats McCain handily now, without the party having "come together", even without taking FL.

          The idea that 1000 year war McCain is going to take MI is just absurd.

          by ogre on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:43:30 PM PDT

          •  HRC - the unstoppable!

            Amazing to see you guys still salivating that HRC will loose this battle somehow! lol. Stop counting the chickens before they are hatched!!

            Because, have you seen latest polls? especially after the entire world saw all Rev. Wright's racist sermons! ...Obama is toast, people, just wake up and change your slogan "yes we can" to "NO WE CAN’T"! :)

            by Tamil Selvi on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 02:45:10 AM PDT

            •  Wow...you are really drinking

              the cool aid with that one!  

              The Reverend is already on the outs and that comment about toast seems like a projection of your own insecurities.

              by Adzam13 on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 05:32:31 AM PDT

            •  within the margin

              movement for one day on a daily tracking poll gets you excited?

              Sad.

              Wright's comments weren't as an Obama surrogate.  Ferraro's were.  Obama rejected Wright's remark.  Hillary waffled around before announcing that it was regrettable -- and didn't renounce it.

              Toast?  

              "Racist" sermons?  Your koolaid appears to be very strong.  I'm white.  I'm not UCC.  I watched the clip that the Hillary camp is so excited about, and I didn't see the "racism."

              I've worked on issues of racism, too.  So...

              Pardon me, but that's just bullshit.

              by ogre on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:55:50 AM PDT

          •  I object to black and white vision.

            Respect for the rules is not an either/or proposition. When you impose rules, you face a cost. I'm asking if you think the price is worth paying. Are you prepared to address the question of whether the consequences of repealing this rule are so serious that it's better to let it stand and let the disgruntled voters in Florida and Michigan sit the election out?????

            FWIW, you're presenting an absurd hypothetical.  From what I've seen, Obama beats McCain handily now, without the party having "come together", even without taking FL.

            What's so absurd about thinking the voters won't necessarily feel the same way in November as they do today???

            Is it absurd to think the Republicans and Mainstream media are only beginning to turn their guns on Obama? You're going to see a lot more ugliness out there, and I don't think it's absurd to envision Obama's current lead disappearing--especially if a rigid adherence to arbitrary rules erodes Obama's Genuinely Nice Guy image.

            by Judge Moonbox on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 07:41:31 AM PDT

          •  Agreed ... DNC rules are the only thing

            that can stop other states from pulling a Michigan in 2012. If MI pays no penalty this time then five or six other states will shout "Me first!" next time. Every state will claim to be a more important battleground than every other state. Eventually the states with the most delegates will be front-loaded and primary season will last ten days and be concluded long before January 1st. People are chafing against the IA-NH always-first system and with good reason. But MI and FL picked a piss-poor method to remedy that. Without rules, you get the law of the jungle. You'd expect a judge (actual or pretend) to know that.  

            by The Nose on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 01:57:32 PM PDT

            •  I meant to agree with Ogre N/T

              by The Nose on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 02:01:47 PM PDT

  •  sadly

    you're right.  this is the only reason why she's still in the campaign.  the party leadership, race-baiting campaign tactics (thank you Mark Penn), and republican crossover voters (who want her to be the nominee, knowing that McCain can beat her).  what an utter disgrace.

    by petronius70 on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 06:43:35 AM PDT

    •  Do you have exit poll data?

      republican crossover voters (who want her to be the nominee, knowing that McCain can beat her).

      So why is it that Hillary Clinton's biggest victories are in states with closed primaries?? The exit polls I've seen say that Obama has had more crossover Republican votes; are we to assume that his crossovers are genuinely supportive while hers are saboteurs? That sounds like circular reasoning to me.

      Besides, the argument that only Obama is electable assumes that we won't do our job by election day: There are millions of people;

      1. who believe the media's Liberally biased who have no ideological need for a stop order on reality checks;

      2. who have shaded their opinions of people and events according to this lie; and

      3. who will be able to reevaluate their perceptions if told that the media's Limbaugh dancing--bending over backwards as far as they can in hopes ol' Rush won't find something to whine about in the inch their shoulders are off the floor.

      What's the point of limiting our choices of candidates based on the assumption that the Republican lie won't be debunked????

      by Judge Moonbox on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 07:53:05 AM PDT

      •  closed primaries mean nothing

        There are many Republicans re-registering as Democrats.  This happened in Ohio quite a bit.  In Ohio, Hillary was almost tied with Obama in the exit polls, but she won the state by 11 percent.  There were some counties in Ohio that ran out of Democratic ballots because so many registered as new members of the party, most of whom were Republicans.  I have no illusion who they're voting for and neither do you, if you're honest with yourself.
        http://www.counterpunch.org/...

        by petronius70 on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 01:46:05 AM PDT

•  Let me know when Senator Clinton

  bangs her shoe on the table.

  by citizenx on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 06:29:47 PM PDT

  •  (YES WE WILL) BURY YOU!

    As it were.

    by George Hier on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 06:37:39 PM PDT

  •  Elections without free speech or free assembly

    Sure, those are fair elections.

    by Michael D on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 06:40:11 PM PDT

    •  Fair and balanced

      Where have I heard that before?

      Hillary's tortured explanation of why the Michigan "primary" was fair ought to be enough to get her laughed out of the convention hall in Denver.  What a giant steaming load of bullshit she dished out with a pleasant but earnest smile.  It was so bad even her dead-ender supporters here are bailing en masse.

      Is that the best we can do?

      by Dallasdoc on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 06:42:55 PM PDT

      •  I laughed.

        Then I realized she was serious.  

        When this is all done, me and Hillary will get together and have a beer, and I'll say "Remember that time you thought that Michigan contest should count." and she'll say "Yeah those were some crazy times.  What in the world was I thinking?"  Then we'll laugh for real.

        by JoelNH on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 07:16:30 PM PDT

        •  Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit

          Hmm, reminds me of these Gene Raskin lyrics from "Those Were The Days"

          Just tonight, I stood before the tavern
          Nothing seemed the way it used to be
          In the glass, I saw a strange reflection
          Was that lonely woman really me?

          Those were the days, my friend
          We thought they'd never end
          We'd sing and dance forever and a day
          We'd live the life we'd choose
          We'd fight and never lose
          Those were the days, oh yes, those were the days

          Yes, Hillary, that lonely woman is you; those days are ending; and though you're still fighting, you're losing.

          by Neel Deesit on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:31:01 PM PDT

          •  I believe it was by

            Konstantin Podrevskii

            by twigg on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 08:23:54 AM PDT

    •  Tacky

      As much as I don't politically agree with Drudge and other right-leaning "news media", you really shouldn't hack the headlines to deny him his income. He has a right to it and you doing things like this makes us look bad. Please think about what you're doing and who it affects.

      by notakoolaiddrinker on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 06:59:13 PM PDT

•  so easy a six-year-old could figure it out....

  what's Hillary's excuse?

  by timmyk on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 06:30:23 PM PDT

  •  4

    My four old thinks its not fair.

    by JoelNH on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 06:42:23 PM PDT

  •  Look out, Barack!

    Sasha Obama is now fair game!  (Unlike Chelsea.)

    by Seneca Doane on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 07:21:15 PM PDT

  •  Hillary's spinning so much stuff

    you would think she's trying out for a Chinese acrobatic team

    by world dancer on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 07:33:53 PM PDT

    •  well

      she did go on that all important visit to China and make a speech.

      harrowing trip.

      excruciating circumstances.

      they didn't even know if her SAFETY could be ensured!

      by MFL on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 08:09:14 PM PDT

•  You'll want to edit this post...

  ...to reflect that it is Iran, not Iraq, which removed the reform candidates.

  by Jay Elias on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 06:30:31 PM PDT

  •  Yup.

    I didn't click through, and so I made a correction down thread that Iran wasn't included.  Ooops.

    by ogre on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 06:32:55 PM PDT

•  excuse me? you are trying to compare

  a government forcibly doing to HRC leaving her name on the ballot in Mi? dear god, keep on stretching, you'll reach the moon soon.

  by tony the American Mutt on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 06:30:35 PM PDT

  •  So you approve

    of one candidate ballots?

    One party systems, too?

    by ogre on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 06:33:50 PM PDT

    •  Obama made a bone-headed move

      when he voluntarily removed his name from the ballot.

      He was NOT following a DNC rule when he removed his name from the ballot.

      by xy109e3 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 06:36:16 PM PDT

      •  Blame the victim for doing what he thought

        was the right thing to do in order to support the party. Yeah. And people wonder why Hillary gets so little respect.

        by banjolele on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 06:38:01 PM PDT

        •  nope, I don't blame him at all

          but why this diary is trying to pretend that she pointed a gun at him and made him take his name off is really not much better then what Flush would say or O'Liely.

          by tony the American Mutt on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 06:39:32 PM PDT

          •  Nothing to do...

            This has nothing to do with choices to be on the ballot or not.

            1. The DNC made a rule that they both agreed to.  In writing.

            2. They pledged that they would not participate.

            3. The delegates would not be seated.

            4. She kept her name on the ballot.

            5. Now she thinks that it is fair and is advocating for changing the rules to seat delegates that were only awarded to her.

            Fairness isn't really the issue.

            We are being asked to determine if this women is suited to be president of the United States, but she cannot be trusted to uphold her written pledge to follow the rules that she agreed to in the election.

            The only other person I know with the arrogance and hubris to think the rules don't apply to them is the current occupant of the White House.

            I do NOT want four more years of that.

            by JoelNH on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 06:50:27 PM PDT

            •  Where in the DNC rules

              or the 4-State Pledge did it say "Remove name from Michigan Ballot"?

              by xy109e3 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 06:57:16 PM PDT

              •  It all depends

                on what the definition of "participate" is, right?

                "I did not have 'participation' with That State!"

                by synchronicityii on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 07:05:10 PM PDT

                •  If Michigan in Monica

                  then Florida is the blue dress.....

                  by Schtu on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 07:55:10 PM PDT

                  •  edit

                    If Michigan IS Monica
                    then Florida is the blue dress....

                    It seems I forgot what the definition of "is"...is

                    by Schtu on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 07:57:01 PM PDT

              •  Not the point,

                Thats not the point of MY post.  The point of my post was that Hillary cannot be trusted to follow her own pledge or follow the rules that she agreed to.

                That says everything you need to know about her.

                by JoelNH on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 07:06:02 PM PDT

                •  Again

                  The DNC had no rules wrt campaigning in FL or MI

                  Hillary obeyed the "the Pledge wrt FL and MI

                  Neither the DNC nor the Pledge said anything about removing your name from the ballot

                  Be specific where Hillary did not follow the Pledge or the "rules".  If you can.

                  by xy109e3 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 07:24:17 PM PDT

                  •  well you see Joe is reading from the pledge

                    he WANTED it to be, not what it really was (sadly common here) so the chance of getting him off that ledge is slim. and I hate seeing fellow BHO supporters go so dangerously off the tracks

                    by tony the American Mutt on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 07:34:22 PM PDT

                    •  Who's Joe?

                      by JoelNH on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 07:35:56 PM PDT

                  •  Wrong.

                    The pledge was "not to participate."

                    And just the other day, in an interview, HILLARY said she participated in that primary.

                    She said it. She stated it.  She used the exact word, affirming that she did in fact break her pledge.

                    But those who didn't are to blame for keeping theirs?  You've wallowed in any means to a goal for too long.

                    by ogre on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:58:53 AM PDT

              •  Grrrr

                It didn't

                ...but it DID say the delegates wouldn't be seated - so she is being incredibly dishonest with her wide eyed sweet desire to do good deeds for the people of Michigan.

                No delegates means no delegates. The election she "won" was an election about nothing.

                Now if she wants there to be delegates there must be an election that does count.

                by slr on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 07:10:34 PM PDT

                •  And they also agreed that they wouldn't ...

                  "participate" in the primary, but in Clintonworld, words mean whatever you say they mean, even if that's something very different than what they mean to normal people.  And if you don't figure out every way in which the most dishonest person could parse the word, then that just means you're stupid, not that they're dishonest.

                  by leevank on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 07:15:26 PM PDT

                  •  No, that's not what "participate" meant in the

                    Pledge.  But it did mean not airing ads or talking to the Press - Obama did both in FL.

                    by xy109e3 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 07:32:59 PM PDT

                    •  That's more than a little dishonest

                      He asked the DNC ahead of time if the national cable ads, which he couldn't keep from airing in FL, would be a violation of his pledge.  They said it wouldn't.  When he talked to the press in FL, he said three sentences, the last of which was "I can't talk to you guys here, you know that."

                      On the other hand, Hillary started talking about how the FL delegation should be seated before that state voted (which got lots of local FL airtime), and held several "fundraisers" in the state with thousands of attendees and local press.  This projection the Hillary astroturfing team uses to try and make her look the victim in everything is quite annoying.

                      by APoxOnBoth on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 07:42:06 PM PDT

                      •  Timing

                        Hillary started talking about how the FL delegation should be seated before that state voted

                        Note that she didn't start talking about it until AFTER NH and IA got their vote.

                        So, she could sign the pledge to look good to the early state, then once they voted - she pulled a 180 and started talking about FL and MI delegates.

                        by JoelNH on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 08:15:00 PM PDT

                        •  Precisely!

                          BEFORE NH and IA voted, she was all for the current schedule.  Then as soon as they voted (and before the NH results were even officially certified), it was basically, "The hell with the current schedule, I'm going to suck up to voters in FL and MI."

                          by leevank on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 01:27:46 AM PDT

                    •  If running for office is not participating

                      Then all the people who are just volunteering to help are also not participating? The people who take the time to vote are not participating?

                      You've got a lot of political science textbooks to go rewrite. You better get to work!

                      by dawnt on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 07:46:41 PM PDT

                      •  Take it up with Obama

                        "This is an extension of the pledge we made..."

                        by xy109e3 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 08:07:45 PM PDT

              •  8 candidates read the rules

                And Gravel, Kucinich, Dodd, Biden, Richardson, Edwards, and Obama all took them to mean they must remove their names from the ballot.

                I think I trust the seven more ethical candidates' reading of the rules.

                by CenterLeft on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 08:59:06 PM PDT

          •  Sorry, I inadvertently recommended your comment.

            I meant to respond. You are deliberately misinterpreting the situation. No one is saying Hillary pointed a gun at Obama to force his name off the ballot. I can't understand why anyone would defend her position. It is obvious that she is only out to improve her position in the delegate count, and not on some principled stand.

            by Nimbus on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 06:54:26 PM PDT

            •  equating Iran forcing names of reformers

              of their ballots to HRC leaving her's on in MI is not saying she somehow forced BHO to take his off? governments use guns to enforce it's rules, so hard to see how that could not be taken from this diary.

              by tony the American Mutt on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 07:37:23 PM PDT

              •  The election was equally fair as Iran's

                That's the point.

                And HRC's keeping her name on the ballot was clearly an attempt to keep open the chance to use Michigan to steal the nomination.

                That shows she's unfit to be president.

                by CenterLeft on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:02:20 PM PDT

              •  All's fair in love and war, and, apparently,

                Hillary's presidential campaign.

                I'm sorry, but the basis of this issue is that all the candidates agreed to the party's ruling on MI and FL. Coming back at this stage of the game and saying that they don't agree anymore isn't something that I would defend. You can do so, if you like, and I'm not going to tell you you can't, but it's prima facie wrong. Hillary has no shame. Neither does Bill.

                by Nimbus on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 06:29:04 PM PDT

          •  I figured it out!

            By submitting and signing a sworn document, and then doing what she suited her interest anyways - Hillary was preparing herself for the real time experience of governing by Signing Statements.

            by MFL on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 08:12:42 PM PDT

        •  Erring on the side of caution is a character flaw

          So sayeth the Clinton supporters.

          Just don't mention Sen. Clinton's vote for the Iraq war...

          by George Hier on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 06:40:38 PM PDT

          •  That old 'warhorse' of an argument for everything

            First, the diarist DID insinuate that Obama's name was removed from the ballot.  He himself removed it and the thinking at the time was it was due to strategy as he was behind in the polls for that. The regulations didn't say to remove one's name, just not to participate otherwise, and no one did, EXCEPT  that Obama DID actively tell voters there to vote FOR "Uncommitted" instead of for Clinton ... and so I feel that for a compromise solution, DNC should give Obama ALL the 'uncommitted' votes, which they can do.

             Then that'll save money and be quite in line with voters who did NOT want Hillary Clinton.

             As for your bringing up the vote for the Iraq war yet again, to cover ANYthing whatsoever (one can wonder if this was Obama's only memorable action, when he was not a U.S. senator at the time:

             Please read Clinton's and Obama's own words about the Iraq war vote DURING her vote for the resolution and in Obama's own words in The New Yorker Magazine in 2004, which echo what he said to Tim Russert but are a bit more startling.

            by Andrys on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 07:26:40 PM PDT

            •  Are you seriously saying that running for office

              is not participating in an election? Because that was the agreement. Not. To. Participate.

              by dawnt on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 07:28:46 PM PDT

            •  Even a stopped clock is right twice idea

              Andrys is exactly right that "Hillary voted for the war!!!" has become Obama's stock answer to everything.

              That does not change the fact that he is wrong on a multitude of other foreign policy issues.

              by He Who Still Must Not Be Named on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 07:48:55 PM PDT

              •  and Hillary gave her word

                and signed a piece of paper that she would abide by her word.

                and she didn't when it became inconvenient.

                by MFL on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 08:16:18 PM PDT

        •  why do you always insist he is a pupertual

          victim? how do you think that helps him?

          by tony the American Mutt on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 06:45:47 PM PDT

          •  "pupertual"

            Huh?  Is that pronounced like "pooper tool"?

            Nobody thinks Obama is a "victim", we're just pointing out that saying the Michigan election was "fair" is absurd.

            (BTW, the word you were going for is "perpetual", as in "I am perpetually amazed at how far Hillary's dyed-in-the-wool supporters will stretch the truth)

            by synchronicityii on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 06:51:51 PM PDT

          •  Heh. Hook, line, and sinker (n/t)

            by banjolele on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 06:54:04 PM PDT

        •  A victim of what?

          Obama was a "victim" of his own poor judgement - Hillary had nothing to with - nor did the DNC rules.

          by xy109e3 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 06:55:52 PM PDT

          •  Hillary participated

            and didn't withdraw her name.

            "good judgement" does not mean lying when you sign your name to a document.

            If she had wanted Michigan to count so badly, then she should have exercised some leadership and brought together the other candidates, these states in question and the DNC OVER A YEAR AGO to ensure that everything went according to plan and in an orderly and organized fashion.

            Instead of showing leadership on the issue, she chose to skirt the situation to suit her interest and then tell everyone else that they were asleep at the wheel and should have known better.  What kind of an example is that?

            Hillary has now shown plainly for all to see that she didn't budget well, she didn't have a backup plan past February 4th, and she that can't be trusted with her word. It is these actions that can be more accurately described as Poor Judgement.

            by MFL on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 08:24:49 PM PDT

      •  "not participate"

        was part of the rules.  Is leaving your name on the ballot participation or not participation?

        by Heart of the Rockies on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 06:39:44 PM PDT

        •  if she or any of the others had AFTER

          that pledge you would have a point, since that did not happen, then no leaving your name on is not actively participating. But of course it now gives you cover to call him a 'victim' without actually showing any way he was victimized except by himself.

          by tony the American Mutt on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 06:44:48 PM PDT

        •  Well, if it was covered by the

          "not participate" clause there was no need for  Obama to say he was voluntarily removing his name from the ballot as an "extension" to the Pledge.

          by xy109e3 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 07:03:25 PM PDT

          •  After both sides finish arguing

            about what "participate" means or doesn't mean*, I hope someone will bravely address JoelNH's point # 5.

            Now she thinks that it is fair and is advocating for changing the rules to seat delegates that were only awarded to her.

            The DNC stripped the delegates from MI and FL. Floridians Nelson and Hastings sued and the court ruled that the DNC was within its rights. Then Hillary started making noises about being fair to FL voters. Once a federal district judge has declared the DNC acted fairly, what standing does a candidate (not yet the nominee) have to overrule that decision?

            I expect MI is in a different district, and I don't know of any lawsuit filed there. But the principle is the same.  

            * Not that it's a trivial argument--I just don't want it to be a smokescreen that lets # 5 escape.

            by The Nose on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 02:39:36 PM PDT

      •  He followed the agreement; Hillary didn't

        The agreement wasn't just to not campaign there, it was to not campaign or participate in the primary.  It was impossible for anybody to remove their name from the ballot in Florida, but Obama and Edwards figured out that voluntarily leaving your name on a ballot constitutes "participating" in the resulting vote.

        I think Hillary could have figured it out, too.  But instead, taking a page from her husband's playbook in which words like "is," "alone" and "sexual relations" mean whatever you want them to, rather than what they do to ordinary people, she left her name on the ballot.  And now she insults all of our intelligence by claiming this means she was wise, rather than simply dishonest.

        by leevank on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 07:12:24 PM PDT

        •  i agree

          and i seem to recall when hillary told the press that the only reason she didn't remove her name from the ballot was that she had missed the deadline for doing so. to me that indicates that she considered "not participating" to include having your name on the ballot.

          by schnecke21 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 08:13:54 PM PDT

        •  Wrong!

          Obama removed his name from MI ballot October 12; he had until October 31 to tell the FL DNC not to forward his name for ballot certification without a penalty

          October 31, 2007
          Each political party, other than a minor political party, shall submit to the Secretary of State a list of its presidential candidates to be placed on the Presidential Preference Primary ballot or candidates entitled to have delegates' names appear

          November 12, 2007
          A candidate's name shall be printed on the Presidential Preference Primary ballot unless the candidate submits to the Department of State an affidavit stating that he or she is not now, and does not presently intend to become, a candidate for President at the upcoming nominating convention

          .

          by xy109e3 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 08:16:17 PM PDT

          •  Are you a complete fool?

            Frankly, you must be, because the language that you quoted states quite directly that the only way anybody could remove their name from the Florida ballot is not simply to witdraw from the Florida primary, but to certify under oath that they weren't going to be a candidate for President at the convention.

            So what do you think Obama should have done?  Certify under oath that he wasn't going to be a candidate at the convention, and then say, "I lied!"  I realize that the Clintons might take the obligation to actually tell the truth under oath that lightly, but most people don't.  

            Or do you simply think the only "fair" thing for Obama (and Edwards) to have done would be to withdraw as candidates for the nomination altogether and acknowledge Hillary as the rightful nominee, since that's the only way they could get their names off the Florida ballot?

            by leevank on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 12:01:11 AM PDT

            •  Can you read?

              Obama had 3 weeks to notify the FL DNC to not forward his name for ballot certification.

              Three weeks - from October 09, 2008 (when he removed his name from the MI ballot) until October 31, 2007 (when the FL DNC submitted a list of names for ballot certification).

              On October 09, 2007 Obama could have notified the FL DNC to remove his name from the list without penalty

              by xy109e3 on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 03:29:09 AM PDT

              •  You obviously can't read!

                The Florida Democratic Party notifies the state of who they consider candidates.  The candidates don't file, and there's no provision for them to refuse to permit the Florida Democratic Party to submit their names to the state.  Where do you see ANYTHING about notifying the FL DNC (sic) to not forward any candidate's name?  Answer:  It's not there.  

                by leevank on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 02:22:12 PM PDT

                •  Absurd.

                  The FL Dem Executive Committe (on October 28, 2007)voted on which candidates to include on the ballot certification list.

                  Obama never sent the FL Dem Executive Committee  a letter requesting to withdraw his name from consideration, (as he did with MI on October 9, 2007)so its a moot point whether the FL Dem Executive Committee would have honored the request.

                  by xy109e3 on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 07:57:11 PM PDT

      •  The agreement was not to PARTICIPATE

        Keeping your name on the ballot is definitely participating. Only a Clintonite thinks that it's a boneheaded move to be UNethical and break your word.

        by dawnt on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 07:14:11 PM PDT

        •  To the Clintons, it's SMART to lie and cheat

          If you don't, it just proves you're a fool.  Don't you feel bad that you're not as clever as them?

          by leevank on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 07:17:31 PM PDT

          •  If it's smart to be secretive as well

            the Repubs would have Cheney running instead of McPain.

            by world dancer on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 07:38:51 PM PDT

          •  Actually

            I feel sorry for someone who has such a cynical and pathetic outlook.  But I guess it has gotten them this far, no reason to expect them to change now.

            by JoelNH on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 07:39:56 PM PDT

      •  Obama wants a Putin-style election

        The above poster is exactly right.

        In the recent election in Russia, Mr. Kasyanov was disqualified allegedly because he did not present enough valid signatures to appear on the ballot.  

        In reality, of course, most of the signatures he presented were perfectly valid, but discarded on technicalities.

        If there is an analogy to this behavior in our recent primaries, it belongs to Barack Obama, not Hillary Clinton.  

        It is Barack Obama's campaign that argues for disenfranchising Florida voters because of a slavish devotion to rules.

        That is suspiciously like a Putin-style election designed to engineer a particular outcome.

        by He Who Still Must Not Be Named on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 07:45:17 PM PDT

        •  why did Hillary agree?

          Why did Hillary agree in writing to not recognize those primaries?

          by MFL on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 08:26:55 PM PDT

        •  That must be the worst

          analogy I have read at DKos...ever.  Where do I begin.

          1. Enforcing rules is neither slavish nor does it require devotion.  It is the fundamental underpinning of our society.  Yes, the rich and those with celebrity status appear to have a different set of rules but adherence to contract and criminal law is a defining characteristic of our democracy.  To impugn having character and enforcing rules is, frankly, pathetic.

          2. In no way does the FL vote in any way resemble the recent predetermined vote in Russia.  It is true that the Florida legislature has done a disservice to the voters of FL but it is certainly not one of the candidates who moved the election.  

          3. There appears to be only one candidate who is attempting to engineer the outcome, and she is doing it because she has no viable alternative.  

          Stop the spin HRC supporters!  

          by Adzam13 on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 05:45:51 AM PDT

        •  I hope,

          for your sake, that you never find yourself discussing the topic of "slavish devotion to rules" with an IRS agent. Some people think rules are very important.

          Obama's not disenfranchising anybody. He didn't advise FL to play chicken with the DNC.

          by The Nose on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 02:51:35 PM PDT

      •  He was following the spirit as well as the letter

        As did several other candidates.

        by mvr on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 07:59:54 PM PDT

      •  Nah.

        You see, he and Edwards and everyone AGREED and PROMISED that the delegates selected in that contest would not count.

        So taking his name off was merely a good faith gesture.  Pity not all candidates bothered to show good faith.

        You're supporting a candidate who wants to break her word, her promise.  And you think she'll act how if she gets to the Oval Office?

        by ogre on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 08:24:17 PM PDT

        •  it's the Experience, stupid

          She and John McBush KNOW what it's like to have to govern by Signing Statements.

          /snark

          by MFL on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 08:28:44 PM PDT

          •  Please, God...

            Not a contest to be the next Urinary Executive.

            by ogre on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 08:32:53 PM PDT

            •  urinary?

              is it like a jelly fish sting?  they have to pee on the statements?

              by MFL on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 08:34:31 PM PDT

              •  Part of the trickle down theory

                Government that trickles down... on us.

                by ogre on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:33:47 PM PDT

      •  Itwas an act of

        solidarity with all of the other DEMOCRATIC candidates.  HRC is too sneaky, underhanded, and self interested to belong to any other party than the Clinton party.

        by Adzam13 on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 05:34:39 AM PDT

    •  did she FORCE BHO to take his name off?

      no. Did she FORCE him to play ads in Fla? no. Did she FORCE him to hold press conferences there? no again. The was no requirement to pull their names from the ballots,and in fact 4-5 of the other candidates at the time were on there.

      What I disapprove of is trying to equate a choice someone had to a government at the point of a gun actively removing other peoples names from ballots. Not just over the top, it is way beyond over the top.

      by tony the American Mutt on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 06:38:12 PM PDT

      •  See my post above

        Maybe you should read the actual language of the rules before you make such adamant statements.

        by Heart of the Rockies on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 06:40:45 PM PDT

        •  off-point

          participate would be holding press conferences (like BHO did in Fla, but you try to ignore that) or public rallies (neither of them did) or playing ads in the areas (uh, like BHO did in Fla, and again you try to just pass over that) or doing anything active in those places. She did none of that.

          by tony the American Mutt on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 06:43:05 PM PDT

          •  This is so annoying

            I get so tired of the Hillary astroturfing team coming through and trolling the same half-dozen talking points several dozen times in every front page and recommended diary.

            He didn't hold a press conference.  He got cornered by some press outside a party function both he and Hillary attended, and disengaged as quickly as politely possible.  Hillary on the other hand held "fundraisers" limited to only a few thousand potential donors and local press, after having grabbed lots of local news by saying that FL should be counted in spite of the rules.

            Apple, meet orange.

            by APoxOnBoth on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 07:48:14 PM PDT

          •  Playing ads in FL

            He ran national ads, from which individual states could not be deleted.

            What she did do is say she didn't remove her name in MI because the votes wouldn't count.  Why didn't they count then, but do now?

            by Heart of the Rockies on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 08:10:35 PM PDT

      •  Re: 4-5 other candidates wereon Michigan ballot

        Would you please provide some substantiation for that comment? My clear understanding, albeit from afar, is that Clinton & Kucinich were the only names on the Michigan ballot.

        by DaNang65 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 07:14:11 PM PDT

        •  Dodd also left his name on.

          I would say Dodd knows when he should remove his name, and so does Kucinich.

          by Andrys on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 07:28:08 PM PDT

          •  Dodd had DROPPED OUT

            of the Presidential race before the Michigan primary.  He dropped out the night the Iowa caucus results came in.

            So he didn't pull his name off the Michigan ballot.  So what?  He wasn't in the game anymore.  It's like leaving the poker game and somebody then saying that the fact you left your drink on the table is significant.

            As for Kucinich, he's the gadfly of these races, always has been.

            by synchronicityii on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 07:58:21 PM PDT

      •  No one FORCED Obama to play by the rules, no.

        He did it anyway.

        You can argue that it was cleverer in a Machiavellian way for Hillary to leave herself on the ballot while claiming it didn't mean anything (just in case she needed to argue the opposite point later); but I prefer a candidate with scruples, personally. Also one who doesn't act like the American people are idiots who will swallow anything if it's spun hard enough.

         Clearly, your mileage may vary.

        by Wit Whither Wilt on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 07:17:30 PM PDT

      •  Hillary's tactic in Michigan is scarier than you

        realize. She is averting the will of the people. She is deliberately trying to make an election count that was not an election. This is the kind of tactic that makes dictators. This is not the kind of thing that we should EVER allow in America, and I am ASHAMED, yes that's right ASHAMED that any American can still stand beside her.

        Not only will I never vote for a ticket that Hillary is on, but for every Democrat that I consider in the future, I will check to see if they supported Hillary Clinton during this election.

        by dawnt on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 07:17:55 PM PDT

        •  It's the sense of "entitlement"

          and currently the entire country is suffering from the shenanagins of those on Wall St. and Pennsylvania Ave. who can always find a way to bend the rules to suit their purposes.

          by world dancer on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 08:24:15 PM PDT

        •  it's called Experience!

          She has the experience of governing by Signing Statements.  She's claiming the mantle of knowing how "it's really done!"

          these naive Obamaniacs just don't understand!

          /snark

          by MFL on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 08:31:23 PM PDT

    •  Since we are strictly following DNC rules

      They already ruled the MI an FL primaries invalid.  No problem, Im glad you agree.

      by Nailbanger on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 07:55:58 PM PDT

•  You know where else

  there are no fair elections?

  Sudan.

  by indiemcemopants on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 06:30:37 PM PDT

  •  North Korea

    Kazakhstan, Belarus, Cuba, let's make a list. Perhaps Hillary's next move will be to send us liberal activist evil people to reeducation camps.

    by beltane on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 06:34:13 PM PDT

    •  Nah she'll just add them

      to the list of states that count.

      by indiemcemopants on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 06:36:41 PM PDT

•  The bottom line here is this:

  We do not conduct elections under one set of rules, and then count the results of the vote under another.

  by GOTV on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 06:30:53 PM PDT

•  I smell a hisssssssy fit coming on....

  by Rasputin on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 06:31:05 PM PDT

•  Excellent point about one candidate elections

  Thanks, DT

  by Bipolar Disorder Democrat on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 06:31:24 PM PDT

•  So Hillary too Obama's name

  off the list in Michigan??

  by sara seattle on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 06:31:38 PM PDT

•  Iraq - a model of flowering democracy

  There was a democratic domino effect around the region, right?

  Right?

  Is it possible Our Glorious Leader wasn't truthful with us?

  I'm so thankful for Maverick McCain.  :: sigh ::

  by expatriatedjerseyan on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 06:31:40 PM PDT

•  You forgot Iran.

  Iran's holding elections in which the results (large scale) are guaranteed, because so many of the folk who aren't hardliners were disqualified.

  Why does Hillary want America to operate by Iranian rules?

  by ogre on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 06:32:05 PM PDT

  •  I think he meant Iran

    since it's their elections that have been in the news the last few days.

    by ZAPatty on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 07:39:08 PM PDT

  •  Our own reformers were also effectively

    disqualified by the corporate media,etc .Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel , among others , were SERIOUSLY MARGINALIZED in a campaign that started so early , too. Pity that.

    I guess we're still a nation that abides by the rule of law, unless you happen to be in the position to MAKE those laws, or ignore them , or interpret them anyway you a