Skip to main content


If Obama is the pledged delegate leader and the untainted popular vote leader, then I will be up in arms if the Super Delegates deny him the nomination. But I do not claim for a second that this violates the rules. It clearly does not. The whining about the existing rules comes from Kos and Josh Marshall and other die hard Obama supporters. THAT is a fact.

Well, given that Clinton cannot win the pledged delegate count, and that it would essentially require Obama to quit the race to lose the popular vote count, the only route to the nomination for Clinton would be one that would have Armando "up in arms".

Nowhere have I said that this would violate the rules. You too, Jerome. All I have said is that it would be a coup by super delegate -- the overturning of the popular results by the party elite.

The rules state that Michigan and Florida don't count. The rules state that all other states -- even the small ones, the ones with blacks, and the ones which have coffee drinkers -- matter. The rules state that this is a delegate race, with voters directly electing pledged delegates at (mostly) the congressional district level. None of this helps Clinton out, so she and her surrogates have set out to make arguments that seek to minimize and belittle the system we have now, whether it's the caucuses, or "small states", or "black people", or whatever.

While a coup by super delegate wouldn't violate the rules, the arguments that the Clinton campaign are advancing to those super delegates, the media, and their supporters make a mockery of them.

Makes sense. When your only path to victory requires making a mockery of the rules, I suppose you have nothing left but to mock the rules.

Still, if the supers overturn the popular will by siding with Clinton, they will spur civil war ("up in arms", as Armando says) -- not because they broke a rule in pulling off their coup, but because they will have subverted the will of the party electorate.

(Title aside, which I don't agree with (it's really just Clinton spin), Booman has more.)

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:16 AM PDT.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Bill now claims that New Hampshire shouldn't (11+ / 0-)

    matter.  Way to go Bill. (/shaking head)


    Hillary Clinton: Running on Fumes!

    by Yoshimi on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:18:37 AM PDT

    •  um Bill, Hillary won NH (11+ / 0-)

      He's really, really talking out of his ass right now.

    •  Oh please. (8+ / 0-)
      He is not saying NH shouldn't count.  He's saying that the punishment of states who broke the rules should be equal -- that is, since NH wasn't punished, FL and MI shouldn't be punished either.

      There's a difference.

      Sometimes the desire around here to paint Bill or Hillary as evil incarnate is disgusting.

      •  you can't compare NH with FL and MI (28+ / 0-)

        Voters in New Hampshire were never told their votes wouldn't count.  All the candidates campaigned heavily there.  All the candidates were on the ballot.  It's not a valid comparison at all.

      •  Did NH break the rules? n/t (0+ / 0-)
      •  If you werent paying attention (8+ / 0-)

        the DNC allowed them to move it up because FL &MI broke the rules to leapfrog ahead of them.

        Sometimes the desire among Hillary supporters trying to paint reality as an evil incarnate is disgusting.

        Hillary kept touting her experience, but not what she learned from it. Perhaps its because all that sniper fire made her forget.

        by KingGeorgetheTurd on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:44:15 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  thank goodness we've got perspective (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          brn2bwild, NJ Liberal, katz5

          far more important to maintain NH and IA's glorious position as "the states that go first"

          Than to count the votes of two of the six biggest states in the country.

          The fact is that with MI and FL, Hillary is the likely popular vote winner, without them, and the fact that you can't prove that statement wrong shows that Obama cannot legitimately win.

          He can't -- he's a stillborn nominee.

          Talk about tearing the party apart -- the Clinton supporters, myself included, have set straightforward and fair criteria.  If Obama wins the popular vote, we'll pack it in.  Obama's supporters, however, have a Jim Baker approach -- its already over even though much of the country hasn't voted, and let's enforce a lot of technicalities over the most FUNDAMENTAL right of all, the right to vote

          I'd hide my head in shame for supporting that view

          •  The thing I don't understand: (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Cyber Kat, beltane

            Florida and Michigan had their delegates stripped WAY before it ended up benefiting Obama.

            Did anyone cry fowl then?

            •  Yes (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              brn2bwild, katz5

              Huge hypocrites like Markos cried fowl then, but now they've changed their position for reasons of unadulterated power grabbing.  

              I thought it was ridiculous then, but since most states don't have a say, it didn't seem to matter.

              Now that we have a close race, it does matter, and it can't stand.

              Before this, I was very critical of anyone who said they'd give up on the democratic nominee based on who won the primary, but if there is no valid primary, I may be done with the democrats forever.  If the party can't stand for voting rights, I'm not a member

              •  My problem is (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                James Kresnik, Joe Beese

                That you can't change the rules in the middle of the game.

                Obama and Hillary, for better or for worse, knew what the rules were. They knew Michigan and Florida couldn't have their delegates seated at the conventions. This wasn't a surprise to either candidate.

                And, only once Hillary won Michigan (with Obama on the ballot) did she start clamoring for the rules to be changed.

                That's not an ideological argument, that's a practical argument; that's trying to win the nomination. I don't fault her for it. If I were in her position, I'd pull out all the strings too, but it's definitely dirty.

                If there's a quote from Hillary right after the decision was made to strip Michigan and Florida's delegates saying that she thinks it's a bad idea, then I'll re-consider.

                •  whoops (0+ / 0-)

                  I meant Obama NOT on the ballot. My apologies, blogosphere.

                •  of course you can change the rules (0+ / 0-)

                  if the "rules" were you had to kill every third voter, would you have to continue with them.

                  These rules are idiotic, and it hurts no one to change them.

                  You'd have an argument if the effort was to make the January vote count, but a revote is not unfair to Obama -- he's doesn't like it because he could lose

                  •  Hillary agreed to kill every third voter (0+ / 0-)

                    In fact, Drudge should get on that right away.

                    "I'm Joe Beese and I approved this message."

                    by Joe Beese on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:37:28 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  .... (0+ / 0-)

                    Okay, then answer this:

                    Why did Hillary only start complaining about Michigan and Florida not having their delegates seated once she was about to win/already one those primaries?

                    From my POV, they both accepted the rules of the DNC when the campaign began. Hillary only acknowledged the plight of the Floridans and Michigonians (?) once it was to her political advantage to.

                    If we're arguing whether it was a good idea to not seat the delegates, I'm torn. But we're WAY too far into this to overturn something that was decided and agreed upon by ALL PARTIES long ago.

                    •  that's actually not true (0+ / 0-)

                      Hillary stayed on the ballot in MI and specifically refused a request to take her name off of it (as did Dodd)

                      Hillary's MI campaign manager criticized Obama for pulling out.

                      But all of that doesn't matter.  It's not about Hillary, its about the voters of two states -- do they have a right to a say or not?

                      Your view is not.  I don't think that's defensible.  

                      •  But it isn't about that... (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        YoGo, Tismo70, Gregory Wonderwheel

                        That's what I'm trying to get across.

                        It's not about the voters in Michigan and Florida. This isn't an ideological argument. The time for ideological arguments is in the off-season, not halfway through. This is a practical argument. Results have already come in.

                        A change now would benefit certain people and hurt certain people. There's a reason why Hillary supporters all want Michigan/Florida counted and Obama supporters overwhelming want to abhide by the rules of the DNC.

                        You don't argue the validity of the infield fly rule or the size of the strike zone during the season, you do it in the off-season and make sure everyone knows the rules going forward.

                        Now, if we're going to get into an ideological argument about whether the delegates SHOULD have been seated when the decision was made, before the candidates had to choose where to put money and what campaign stops to make, then I'd be on the fence. But it's too late for that now.

                        And, I'm not trying to bash Hillary either. This is just a political move. She's a politician. Obama would have done the same thing if the roles were reversed. It is just, absolutely, not ideological.

                        •  Very well argued (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          sploch, katz5

                          I agree totally. You make an excellent point. But I wonder though if Obama may have been better served by agreeing to the revotes, even though the rules clearly do not require it, because it would give him an opportunity to win over FL and MI voters and better prime those states for the general election. To ignore those states' voters is perfectly within the bounds of the DNC's rules and no one should fault Obama for following the rules. But, still, it may have been a wonderful opportunity to sway the voters of those states at a time of maximum media attention. Ah well. We go on and deal with what is, not what could, or should, have been.  

                          •  honestly (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            YoGo, Gregory Wonderwheel

                            I wish Obama had decided to do a re-vote, maybe with a clause worked out so Michigan and Florida get half their delegates stripped.

                            But, with the state Democratic party having to pony up the bill, I guess it wasn't meant to be.

                            And Obama played politics. He is a politician. Like Hillary. This is one conflict that, I'm sure, if the sides were reversed, they'd both be saying opposite things.

                        •  politicians aside (0+ / 0-)

                          its our party, how should the votes be counted.

                          I'd think I'd want a meaningful vote no matter who it favored.

                          The rules were stupid when they were put in place, and you are ignoring the huge mistake that was made when that rule was announced -- the people who made that decision assumed it wouldn't matter because it hasn't mattered in a long time.  

                          •  response, delicately written, formally composed (0+ / 0-)

                            You can't put 'politicians aside' anymore. One outcome directly benefits one politician to another's chagrin. Hillary knew the rules as well as Obama did.

                            The decision back in the summer might have been stupid.

                            And if it was, the next move is to make sure it never happens again.

                            So, how do we prevent this in the future? What would be the appropriate punishment for states moving up their primaries?

                            We will change the 2012 nominating process.

                          •  They knew it would matter & it could be fixed (0+ / 0-)

                            It only takes the good will of the two states' Democratic parties to fix it. But the state parties are arguing because the supporters of the two campaigns are in the state parties and not agreeing.  

                            I have no sympathy if the state parties don't get their act to together to fix the problem.

                    •  agreed to? (0+ / 0-)

                      It was decidedly NOT agreed to by MI and FL.

                      •  It was a tacit agreement (0+ / 0-)

                        by their breaking of the rules. They were made aware of the potential repercussions beforehand, and contrary to a lot of Clinton supporters' talking points, in Florida's case, the entire House-both Ds and Rs- voted to pass the bill (537) that moved the primary up. If you don't think Granholm has buyer's remorse, then just look how hard she's been fighting with the MI lege to get a revote...most futile, of course.

                        "Hey, wait a minute, there's one guy holding up both puppets!" -Bill Hicks

                        by Tismo70 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:16:33 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                •  The nomination process is designed for ... (0+ / 0-)

                  ...changing whatever the hell the movers and shakers want to change. Why do you think we're having this discussion?  

                  Until there are 50 state primaries, we will continue to have rules du jour.

                  HR 676 or California's SB-840 - the only health reform proposals worth my vote.

                  by kck on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:56:56 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  I believe you meant to say "foul", not "fowl", (0+ / 0-)

                but even this correction does not fix the craptitude of your first sentence.

                •  try to square this story with last year (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  wow, that hurts, although craptitude ain't a word

                  why don't you square Kos' position today with this:

                  Clinton and Dodd aren't bailing on Michigan voters.

                  Pledging to not campaign in Michigan is one thing (as stupid as I might think it is), but slapping Michigan voters in the face by taking their names off the ballot, well, that's another thing entirely. They didn't move the primary up. The politicians did.

                  Hillary and Dodd are apparently the only two candidates on the Democratic side unafraid of incurring the wrath of irrational Iowans and Granite Staters desperately hanging on to the final vestiges of their undeserved primary supremacy.

                  or this

                  Adam B notes that a DNC committee has voted to strip Florida of its delegates unless it moves its primary back within the next 30 days.

                  Any such decision will never stick. Never.

                  Does anyone really think that Democrats will disenfranchise the delegates of a large swing state, whether it's Florida or Michigan?


                  That's just a sampling of Kos' blatant results-oriented flip on this issue.  

                  •  Yes Kos is talking out of both sides of his mouth (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    brown girl in the ring

                    But also it is partly apples and oranges.

                    Kos was cheering on Florida and Michigan for bucking the system, but once the decision was done and the actual elections were held in a manner that was not fair to all candidates, then the counting question takes a different slant.

                    Florida and Michigan can have their delegates at the convention as soon as they agree on a fair alternative method of selecting delegates.

              •  ouch (0+ / 0-)

                Another question: did the FL democratic party have control over the timing of the primary?  Didn't the republican controlled state government dictate that?

                If so, I don't think it's right to strip the state of it's representation.

              •  Chick, you are mistaken. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Joe Beese

                Kow was fully aware of the MI and FL situation and made no bones about their impotence in this primary season.

                You are simply repeating the Clinton's whine.

                Thanks for playing.

                Many people did not care for Pat Buchanan's speech; it probably sounded better in the original German."

                by Flippant on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:25:08 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  No, but there's more: no delegates stripped yet (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              brown girl in the ring

              No delegations can be said to have been striped until opening day of the Democratic Convention. The states of FL and MI not yet had their delegates "stripped". That fact should be the context of the debate.  But conveniently the Clintons want to overlook this "little" matter.  

              What has been determined is only that no delegates from those bogus election days are going to count.

              If the state Democratic Party in each state comes up with an agreement of an alternative fair way to select delegates then those delegates will be seated. What is "fair"? That would be determined by the State party, and the Convention credentials committee with the input of argument by the campaigns. So if the two campaigns signed off on any reasonably fair alternative then FL and MI delegates will be seated.

              It is the deadlock of the campaigns playing "chicken" with each other that is preventing a resolution from being reached. Each side doesn't want to accept an alternative that will give the other side any advantage. Clinton won't accept state caususes because Obama has a better caucus machine in place. Obama doesn't want to accept a mail ballot becasue he feels that will advantage Clinton because her supporters are more conservative and are the type to return mail ballots.

              As the date of the convention gets closer the ability to hold caucuses or a mail vote will fade and so the state parties will have to decide if they will put together a state delegation by appointment, for example 50-50, and send that to the convention. That would get the states' delegation to the convention and participating.

              So the argument that the state's will not be represented a the convention comes down to a game of chicken by the campaigns, and the Clintons are just as responsible as anyone for not coming to agreement on a plan to have FL and MI delegtions selected.

            •  Yes, Kos did in January (0+ / 0-)

              Here's what he had to say then:

              Sure, the DNC has stripped Michigan of its delegates, but that won't last through the convention. The last thing Democrats can afford is to alienate swing states like Michigan and Florida by refusing to seat their delegates.

              Frugal Fridays, where the cheap come to chat.

              by sarahnity on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:20:57 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  What you forget is that the decision was made (5+ / 0-)

            before anyone voted.

            Whether or not it was "right" or "moral" for NH to move forward, the candidates agreed before any voting that NH would count and FL and MI would not.

            The problem with Clinton is that she is now trying to reneg on her previous agreement. She is not trying to make a new argument from new facts.

          •  Straightforward and fair lol (3+ / 0-)

            How the hell are you even going to count the popular vote considering some caucus states don't count it?

            The popular vote metric is a load of horseshit. It'd be a great metric if everyone had primaries, and we had all agreed on it to start with.

            To me, the absolute most important issue ANY of us has, and this nation has, is that we are currently being ruled by a gang of immoral war criminals. -Hornito

            by discocarp on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:04:39 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Funny isn't it (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              discocarp, beltane, James Kresnik

              that the same people who "in fairness" include FL and MI in the popular vote also "in fairness" exclude all the caucus state Obama won. The fact that the media plays along with this, while claiming the popular vote is a critical metric, tells you a lot about the media.

              I've always wanted to make a comment that ends with the word Mayonnaise

              by frankzappatista on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:21:50 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  The caucus is a popular vote. (0+ / 0-)

              In case you didn't know, votes are taken at the caucus and that is how the delegates are determined. Since any Democrat can walk into a caucus and vote, then that is a "popular" vote by caucus. It is just not a popular vote by primary.

              It is a "popular' vote at a caucus because the candidate with the most popularity wins.  Those votes are counted and reported to each state's state party.

              •  Not true for all caucus states (0+ / 0-)

                Some only record delegates not popular vote totals. Popular vote totals can only be extrapolated from delegates, which is VERY inexact.

                To me, the absolute most important issue ANY of us has, and this nation has, is that we are currently being ruled by a gang of immoral war criminals. -Hornito

                by discocarp on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:27:57 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I don't know (0+ / 0-)

                  I just know that I'm in a caucus state, and I'm a person, and I voted. I should count in any "popular vote" total. MI and FL are cool and all, but they're no cooler than me.

                  In the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope.

                  by alkalinesky on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:23:11 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          •  I'll say it again (0+ / 0-)

            It's always been over in the past after only 10 or so states have voted. As a former Nebraska voter I've felt cheated in the past that all I got to do was rubberstamp a nominee, but no campaign or their supports gave a shit before it directly affected them.

            It's also been said before that caucus voting totals are non-existent for many states and a poor comparison tool, which is why we don't go by popular vote. The rules say we go by pledged delegates, which proportions out delegates based on metrics that are directly comparable across all states. (I saw a good analogy around here comparing the popular vote/pledged delegate conversion to the need to find common denominators when adding something like 1/4 and 1/8.)

            The rules also punished Florida and Michigan, which it's been noted before KNEW about this  but continued anyway because they (like everyone else) assumed HRC would be the runaway nominee, and they would get their media $$$ with their sham elections and then have their delegates approved by the HRC-dominated convention rules committee later in the summer. I would love to have a FL/MI revote; I think HRC supporters who see these states as their new (old?) firewalls would be surprised by how well Obama does in both states with his ground game and personal appearances wiping out any name advantage. But at this point, a revote won't happen and the rules say the states have screwed themselves. Didn't matter to Hillary until it appeared like they might matter to her campaign, and then they get to benefit from her righteous anger and how-dare-they rhetoric. I would hope people would be smart enough to see through the political opportunism in such reversals of opinion.

            I don't like some of the rules, and I don't like our primary system. But this should be the impetus to change them moving forward, not change them or ignore them because they suddenly prevent one candidate's path to the nomination.

            •  wrong (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              brn2bwild, leanakin

              the rules don't say we go with pledged delegates

              the rules say that delegates -- super and pledged -- have to hit a certain total.  Obama can't win under the rules with pledged delegates.

              so it comes down to arguments -- who has the will of the people behind them.  You can make any arguments you want about pledged delegates, but they are just that, arguments.  

              and clinton has counterarguments about the people's will.

              but Obama wants to make sure that about 10% of the country isn't heard from because they would assist Hillary in showing that the will of the people is with her

              •  So HRC would win 100%in MI & FL? (0+ / 0-)

                "10% of the country...the will of the people is with her"

                This implies that HRC would receive 100% support from MI and you are highly exagerrating the effect of getting these votes to count.

                Lets think about this.  If HRC won these states wouldn't it be more like 55-45 or 52-58, typical of states that she won?  
                SO the will of the people would be more like a 5.5% to HRC and 4.5% to BO, does that considerably beef up her counter arguments?  
                But if there were to be another primary do you think HRC would actually dominate?  Now that BO has far more exposure than in January, and HRC just caught in an embarrasing bald face lie, are these states really shoe-ins for HRC?

          •  Then you need to explain to me lucy (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Joe Beese

            How do you arrive at a popular vote total.
            And don't leave any state out of that number either.
            Any fool can count just what they want to make them self the winner.

            Show me where there even was a popular vote total for a presidential primary before this election.

            WHY? Because you need the stat now to make your case but it just does not exist. Neither does your poor excuse for making a case that she is the winner.

            Obama did not make the delegate race up it was done by the last convention. He just aligned his campaign to take advantage of it. So he won it's really just that simple.

            •  obama can't win with pledged delegates (0+ / 0-)

              you keep ignoring that

              he can't win that way

              •  Yea he wins them (0+ / 0-)

                in Oregon. I'm not ignoring them at all.

              •  Neither can win with pledged alone, so? (0+ / 0-)

                When the voting in state primaries is over, neither candidate will have the 2025 needed to win without super delegate votes. So?

                That means the superdelegates are the swing votes to determine the outcome. That is the reason the superdelegates are there.  That was exactly the intent of the rules for creating the superdelegates.

                The superdelegates are there to decide for the Party when the voting in primaries was non conclusive.

                All the foo-for-rah now is about whether the superdelegates will choose wisely.  

                The superdelegates who have declared for one candidate or another before the primaries were over have NOT chosen wisely, because they chose too soon.

                When the superdelegates do have to choose, they will have to have good reasons for their choice. The many people who claim the rank and file will be "up in arms" are trying to create a foundation to persuade the superdelegates to vote for the pledged delegate leader. That is one consideration for superdelegates. But they may and should have other concerns because the rules gave them the authority and responsibility to have those concerns.

                Now I think that it is a major and overriding concern to support the candidate with the most pledged delegates, but if there is a counterweighing concern that comes up prior to the convention, then the superdelgates can't ignore it.

                So far, despite those superdelegates who irresponsibly declared early, it seems to me the majority of the superdelegates are taking their role seriously and will give a good account of themselves when the convention comes.

          •  you do realize (0+ / 0-)

            that a primary process has no intrinsic right to any votes right? Its a private party selection process. Most nominees were chosen by only 1% of the people up until only a few decades ago. The game set up is based on delegates.

            If popular votes were to reflect the outcome, we would have to change the process to eliminate caucuses. Then you could have an argument. But hey, popular votes don't even decide elections, Electoral votes do. Your vote is just a suggestion.

            Hillary kept touting her experience, but not what she learned from it. Perhaps its because all that sniper fire made her forget.

            by KingGeorgetheTurd on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:16:21 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Perspective doesn't change the situation (0+ / 0-)

            I understand your desire to have the votes counted, but this isn't a general election, this is a primary where rules have been established by the DNC.  Two states broke the rules, a pledge was signed in which candidates agreed to not campaign or participate in the primaries, with the understanding that the delegates of said states would not count at the convention.

            What don't you understand? This isn't an argumnet over technicalities. If you rob a bank and get caught, you don't get sent to jail because of technicalities, rather the rules and laws.  The rules were well established, these were broken, these were enforced.  It has nothing to do with whether HRC agreed to not have the votes counted,  the states (and all candidates) were aware of the rules and the consequences should said rules be broken.

            Saying that since Hillary didn't ever agree that the votes shouldn't count on an ideal basis (which defies the implications of her signing the pledge) so therefore the delegates should still be seated at the convention...that is arguing technicalities

            I can also speculate too, so here's one:  If Hillary did not think she could win the popular vote in the two states, her donors would not be trying to pay for another primary, thus her claimed idealist position to eradicate "voter disenfranchisment" is really just a self serving pile of bull.  And you can't prove that statement wrong

      •  Agreed, Angry Mouse (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        brn2bwild, NJ Liberal, kck, Angry Mouse

        I'll preface this by saying I'm an Obama supporter, but what's happened to the Reality Based Community at DailyKos? I've got pleny of reasons why I don't want to see Hillary get the nomination, but I'm trying to keep those reasons based in reality. Meanwhile, this blog looks more and more like the Salem witch trials what with the level of histeria generated by every out-of-context, meaning-twisted, let's-read-her-mind-for-what-she-really-means so-called quote from Hillary.  It's appalling. It really hurts the site's credibility, and I'm surprise Kos hasn't tried to tamp it down. (Or if he did, I'm sorry I missed it, but honestly I'm not coming here quite as often these days.)

        It turns out news delivered on a for-profit basis is a bad business model for democracy.

        by George Lynch on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:57:37 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Obama supporters struggle (5+ / 0-)

        with facts and such.

        Whenever someone named Clinton opens their mouth, the folks here assume the weirdest things.  You know:

        Clinton says Obama isn't a Muslim (but she says he is!!!!!)

        Clinton says Obama doesn't have experience (see?!?! She is endorsing McCain!!!!)

        Clinton says she doesn't agree with Ferarro (see?!?! Clinton's a racist!!!)

        Clinton says it would be nice to focus on issues, not distractions (he's calling Obama unpatriotic!!!)

        Jeebus, it's just crazy and lame.

        •  You have misrepresented the facts. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          You have conveniently done exactly what you project onto Obama supporters. You have misrepresented the facts.  

          Clinton says Obama isn't a Muslim (but she says he is!!!!!)

          False, Clinton said he's not a muslim "as far as I know." That makes her statement mean something entirely different, and does have a commonly recognized implication.

          Clinton says Obama doesn't have experience (see?!?! She is endorsing McCain!!!!)

          False. Clinton said only she and McCain are Commmander in Chief material. That was an endorsement of McCain over Obama.

          Clinton says she doesn't agree with Ferarro (see?!?! Clinton's a racist!!!)

          False. Clinton said that Obama must "repudiate" the people who support him who are controversial, and then Clinton did not repudiate Ferrarro, only said she didn't agree. (Later Ferraro was repudiated by the Clinton campaign when the failure to do so became too much to ignore.)

          Clinton says it would be nice to focus on issues, not distractions (he's calling Obama unpatriotic!!!)

          False, that is not the source of the claim that Bill Clinton called Obma "unpatriotic."  I don't have the original at my fingertips, but the Bill Clinton comment wasn't just that.

          •  Gregory Wonderwheel (0+ / 0-)

            You just demonstrated what I am talking about. (See my comment, as of this writing, just above clbrune's comment to which you replied. Some two weeks ago I read at Media Matter for America the following article on the "as far as I know" remark. It's hard to find a more authoritative source than Media Matters for America. Now, two weeks later, I read the quote again here at DailyKos with every negative connotation still intact. Please people, let's all try to make arguements that are based in reality.

            It turns out news delivered on a for-profit basis is a bad business model for democracy.

            by George Lynch on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:07:57 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Your comment is crazy and lame (0+ / 0-)

          Its especially crazy because all your "facts" are so easily disproved (See Gregory's response), kind of like fantasy stories of dramatic dangerous diplomatic meetings, rushing frantically from planes to avoid raining bullets.

          Jeebus is right!

        •  True (0+ / 0-)

          Probably as crazy and lame as generalizing that to be an Obama supporter is to be devoid of all thought and reason.  Quantifiers are our friends; invest in one from time to time.  But by all means keep on with the name calling--nostalgia for the schoolyard does hold some charm.

        •  To be fair, you probably mean just a bunch... (0+ / 0-)

          ...of posters here, no?

          HR 676 or California's SB-840 - the only health reform proposals worth my vote.

          by kck on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:18:50 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  At minimum, punishment should be limited... (0+ / 0-) the guilty, not the entire states and so the whole Democratic Party.

        HR 676 or California's SB-840 - the only health reform proposals worth my vote.

        by kck on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:15:40 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  It's OK (0+ / 0-)

      as long as he doesn't wag his finger at the camera when he says that.

      That would make him sound disingenuous.

      Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. Thomas Jefferson 6/11/1807

      by Patriot4peace on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:23:37 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  OK, BIll. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sja, the disinfector

      Le's disqualify New Hampshire too. Just to be fair.

    •  She'd have lost a head-to-head contest in teh NH. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      beltane, pamelabrown

      The Edwards [and Richardson] vote would have gone for Obama by enough of a margin for him to have won.

  •  "Untainted" popular vote? (11+ / 0-)

    He doesn't seem to say what he means by that, but I'm going to guess "Leads in popular vote even after we give Clinton the votes from that farce in Michigan".


    Having trouble finding stuff on Daily Kos? This page has some handy hints and tricks.

    by dmsilev on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:19:00 AM PDT

  •  Has it ever been proven that Armando has arms? (5+ / 0-)
  •  Should you change that to (0+ / 0-)

    BTD? Sorry for interrupting the story with this, just figured it might be important.

  •  Amen (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mjd in florida

    Nothing more to add.

    •  Far be it for me (0+ / 0-)

      to contradict our fearless leader, but just yesterday he said:

      The Clinton campaign has realized that the rules don't work in their favor, that if we follow the rules as agreed upon before the first caucus vote was cast in Iowa, that they have no chance of winning.

      So according to him then, any win by Clinton would be breaking the rules.  Now he acknowledges she could win by a superdelegate "coup" but now he claims:

      Nowhere have I said that this would violate the rules.

      Actually you did just yesterday.

      Frugal Fridays, where the cheap come to chat.

      by sarahnity on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:17:50 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Way to go with the quick response. (12+ / 0-)

    What a dumb argument (not to put to fine a point on it) by Armando/Jerome et al.  Nobody's saying it would be cheating; we're just saying that we'd be royally pissed, and with good reason.

    Our destiny will be written not for us, but by us.

    by Pegasus on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:19:34 AM PDT

    •  Bull. (5+ / 0-)

      I've seen plenty of comments and diaries around here that refer to Clinton "stealing" the election by way of superdelegates.  

      •  'Stealing' is breaking a different rule (0+ / 0-)

        not The Rules

        •  What? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Bartimaeus Blue

          I don't know if I'm supposed to interpret that as snark, but I've PLENTY of accusations of stealing based on the idea that HRC could be behind in pledged delegates and still get the nomination through super delegates.

          •  Right (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            AltruisticSkeptic, Pegasus

            But you're wrongfully assuming that to steal the act must be against the rules.

            The English language disagrees with you.

            •  My comment... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Bartimaeus Blue
              was in response to someone saying that although this wouldn't be cheating, it would piss people off.

              I was rebutting that many people have in fact said that this would be cheating.

              I personally do not believe it would be cheating.  Cheating means breaking the rules.  If you win by use of the rules, it is not cheating.  It is also not stealing.

              •  It is stealing, it would not be cheating... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                ...according to the English language.

                Or does your argument presume that all rules define ethics?  

                As an obtuse example for illustration:  If a dictator creates a law saying he can take anyone's land under the agreement of an elite committee, does that not qualify as stealing because it's legal?

                So yes, it's stealing... but no, she wouldn't be cheating.

                Leave it at that and cede that end of the philosophical and linguistic argument...

              •  You can assign whatever meanings you want... (0+ / 0-)

                but the actual meaning of the word stealing is not what you say.

                Ever heard of "stealing a trick?" How about when a baseball team plays badly, but gets a lucky Home Run to "steal the game?"  Should they be arrested?

                It takes willful misunderstanding to get the interpretation your using. No one thinks that the superdelegates throwing, umm, I mean filching, their conscience and giving the nomination to Hillary will break any rules. We just think it would stink to high heaven.

                In 2000, a criminal became President. In 2004, we failed to remove him.
                American Democracy, 1787-2004, RIP

                by davewill on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:03:06 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  calm down and address the arguement (0+ / 0-)

                So flippin' what if "someone" said it would be stealing, that's not what Kos said in his post.

                Tensions are high on both sides.  Only one candidate can win.   If the shoe were on the other foot I would want Obama to step down so that a nominee certain could move forward and plan for the convention and general election.  This is divisive for the party.  Hillary has now passed the point where it is damaging her reputation.  She needs to decide how much damage she will take on the slight - and declining - chance she might overtake Obama.  You and other supporters are merely enabling this.

      •  Some stealing is legal. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ablington, strengthANDwisdom

        I stole a piece of candy from my neice.

        Hillary Clinton: Running on Fumes!

        by Yoshimi on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:22:38 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  For definition of "stealing" (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        see kos' post.

      •  That fringe doesn't speak for most of us. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        wader, geejay

        They just speak louder than everyone else combined.

        Although, FWIW, "stealing" isn't an entirely inaccurate term to use.  It would be perfectly within the rules to win as Clinton hopes to, so it's not a perfect description (I prefer "coup by superdelegate").  But it acceptably describes the crux of the matter, IMHO.

        Our destiny will be written not for us, but by us.

        by Pegasus on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:24:12 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  If you consider the owners of the party... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Scoopster be the members of the party, then "Stealing" would be an appropriate term given the English language as a primary source:

        Stealing doesn't necessarily refer to "illegal".

      •  IMO it would be stealing. (0+ / 0-)

        She would be co-opting the nomination process.

        •  Game. Set. Match. Jerome. (0+ / 0-)

          "Terror is nothing other than justice...; it is ... the general principle of democracy applied to our country's most urgent needs." M. Robespierre

          by Bartimaeus Blue on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:42:55 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Pretty fun to swoop in on one person who's wrong (0+ / 0-)

            and declare total victory, huh?  Sheesh.  Clinton supporters' standards of "winning" certainly have plummeted of late.

            ps: hopefully I'm not mistaken in calling you a Clinton supporter; I seem to remember your handle from back in the day when they still came around.

            Our destiny will be written not for us, but by us.

            by Pegasus on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:48:29 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  You are in fact mistaken. (0+ / 0-)

              I am not suporting Clinton.  I have never supported Clinton.  I supported Edwards.  I now support Obama.

              I think Jerome is, essentially right, that Clinton would not be doing anything improper under the "rules" by using SDs to take the nomination.  I think it would be unwise (and a disaster politically), but not a coup.

              It would also be as clear an indication of the foolishness of the current nomination process -- and its myriad ways to circumvent the voice of the voters -- as I can imagine.

              But Kos' obfuscations of the point that Clinton's strategy is entirely proper under the "rules" is hypocritical and absurd.  

              "Terror is nothing other than justice...; it is ... the general principle of democracy applied to our country's most urgent needs." M. Robespierre

              by Bartimaeus Blue on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:53:58 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  It's not absurd at all. (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Scoopster, frankzappatista, imisa

                I don't think it's absurd to study a set of rules, identify loopholes that are problematic, point out the [moral/ethical/whatever] violations inherent in utilizing such loopholes, and ask our leaders to hold themselves to a higher standard.

                Can she?  Yes.  Should she?  No.  That's the whole argument, and it really is just that simple.

                Our destiny will be written not for us, but by us.

                by Pegasus on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:00:46 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I agree (3+ / 0-)

                  Except it's not a loophole we're talking about here.  It was the intent of the party to empower the SDs to make an anti-popular choice.  That was the purpose of having the SDs in the first place.

                  "Terror is nothing other than justice...; it is ... the general principle of democracy applied to our country's most urgent needs." M. Robespierre

                  by Bartimaeus Blue on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:10:04 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  It's precisely a loophole. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:

                    It's often the intent of legislators to leave loopholes in regulatory legislation.  This isn't any different.

                    The party establishment wished to have a system that would allow them to overrule the rank and file.  I don't think that's the way it should work, even if it is the way it can work.

                    Our destiny will be written not for us, but by us.

                    by Pegasus on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:16:41 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I guess we disagree about the meaning of loophole (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      NJ Liberal

                      I tend to associate a loophole with the existence of an unintentional way past the plain purpose of a law or rule.  Not a thought-through considered creation of an exception or fail-safe.  

                      So I wouldn't characterize a Presidential veto as a loophole, or a successful vote to override a veto as a loophole to the loophole.  

                      I would consider the lack of explicit language in the Detainee Treatment Act to retroactively strip the federal courts of jurisdiction to hear cases by GTMO detainees as a loophole that allows cases to continue if they were pending when the DTA was passed as a loophole, because Congress didn't consider the question of retroactivity when it passed the DTA.

                      "Terror is nothing other than justice...; it is ... the general principle of democracy applied to our country's most urgent needs." M. Robespierre

                      by Bartimaeus Blue on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:25:30 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  LOL. (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:

                        You don't think Congress was aware of that question when they passed the law, and that they deliberately ignored it?  Mmkay.

                        Anyway, whatever you want to call it, the nominating rules were set up to provide for a nominee by popular acclaim -- unless the party establishment doesn't like it, in which case they'll just decide for us.  So in cases in which the desires of the powerful conflict with the "normal" outcome, such an outcome will be  overridden.

                        Yeah, "loophole" isn't quite the right word.  It's more of an escape clause.  But the spirit is the same.

                        Our destiny will be written not for us, but by us.

                        by Pegasus on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:35:13 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  No. I don't. because as soon as the Courts (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:

                          said -- hey.  You didn't legislate retroactively, Congress went back and passed a law saying: No we meant it.  Even pending cases.

                          Apologies if I confused the DTA and the MCA.  I can never remember which one came first.

                          "Terror is nothing other than justice...; it is ... the general principle of democracy applied to our country's most urgent needs." M. Robespierre

                          by Bartimaeus Blue on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:38:50 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  The Spirit is NOT the same (0+ / 0-)

                          Yeah, "loophole" isn't quite the right word.  It's more of an escape clause.  But the spirit is the same.

                          The SD's  independence is in the rules by design, not by mistake. I simply don't see how you, kos, or anyone else can accuse HRC of treachery for going into a convention with less than the majority of delegates and still wanting to win.

                          Obama's doing the same thing. He's just asserting that, since it suits his agenda, the SDs should all vote with the 'leading' candidate and ignore their stated purpose.

                          You can bet that if the shoe were on the other foot, we'd be having this argument in reverse.

              •  I'm not questioning the legality by the rules. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                I'm questioning the integrity of pursuing this, which will lead people to leave the party EN MASSE.

                Including myself.  If Hillary co-opts the nomination via the superdelegates, I'm out.

      •  Last time... (0+ / 0-)

        the Super delegates went counter to the pledged delegates, we got Walter Mondale.  And one of the most one sided general election results in Presidential history.

        Do we want to risk doing that again?

        don't respond to the lies... put two bits in your Obama jar and spite them with his fund raising!

        by Libesatva on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:58:17 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  wall street types (0+ / 0-)

        play by the rules, but they sure do steal.


        by AltruisticSkeptic on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:59:15 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  From my view it is stealing the election (0+ / 0-)

        The super Delegates were not meant to decide the election against the will of the people. The last convention (of delegates) set the rules on how the delegates would be assigned. This is how the race was set up. Granted they could vote for whom they wish. But by a reason other than that which was determined prior to the election starting is not fair play, and then it is stealing the election.

        Personally I don't think she can get the supers to go her way, if he wins the pledged delegates. So it's probably a mute point.

  •  Two comments (7+ / 0-)

    #1 - the idea of Clinton trying to get pledged delegates gives the impression that the Clinton team would be working the floor with suitcases of money at the DNC.

    #2 - If the nomination is sealed.. then it wouldn't be too bad of an idea to throw a bit of a bone to Michigan and Florida. But, I wouldn't support bringing them back into the fold if they change the results of the nomination.

    "Our country right or wrong. When right, to be kept right; when wrong, to be put right" - Carl Schurz

    by RBH on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:19:40 AM PDT

    •  #2 shouldn't be done... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      ...Kos has a good point about drawing a line in the sand.  Backing down now means that the schedule will eventually go apeshit because every state will move up trying to best the other.

      How do you feel about candidates having their primaries the day after the previous election? :)

      (OK, that was obtuse, but it illustrates the point.)

      •  True (0+ / 0-)

        the problem is that while only a tiny number of people care about the penalties, that tiny number might be vital in Michigan or Florida.

        Perhaps the delegates can be allowed to vote for everything except President.

        "Our country right or wrong. When right, to be kept right; when wrong, to be put right" - Carl Schurz

        by RBH on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:41:58 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Eventually? (0+ / 0-)

        the schedule will eventually go apeshit because every state will move up trying to best the other.

        Eventually? It's already happened.

        In fact, according to today's newspaper, Mike Huckabee has just won the 2012 Iowa Caucus and is the presumed front runner in the race to challenge President Obama in five years.

        "...And I woulda got away with it, if it hadn't been for that meddling Kos!" ---attributed to Tom DeLay

        by AdmiralNaismith on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:50:36 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Because rules are rules? (0+ / 0-)

        Or are rules only rules when they favor one side over the other?

        You know, that is a fair question when, essentially, kos is being called out for saying that out would be a "coup" (i.e. against the rules or outside of them) to take the nomination with SDs to overcome a deficit in the pledged delegate count.  That's patently false.  It would be unwise and a disaster politically, but not a "coup".

        And then to turn around and say we must respect the "rules" even when that means the disenfranchisement of millions of democratic voters in Florida (I'm not going to comment on Michigan).

        So which is it?  The rules that favor Clinton?  Or the rules thar favor Obama?  

        "Terror is nothing other than justice...; it is ... the general principle of democracy applied to our country's most urgent needs." M. Robespierre

        by Bartimaeus Blue on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:59:33 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Why will you comment on Florida (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          and not michigan?

          To me, the absolute most important issue ANY of us has, and this nation has, is that we are currently being ruled by a gang of immoral war criminals. -Hornito

          by discocarp on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:06:23 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Because... (0+ / 0-)

            In florida the rules favored no particular candidate.  That is, they were all operating under identical handicaps.  So the real only arguments against the Florida results are either that

            1.  The process was so flawed as to not constitute a valid nomination -- e.g., the lack of campaigning  (or some other such flaw that on its face favored no candidate over another) is such a fundamental deficit so as to make the Florida results invalid.  I think that argument carries no water because not only are the processes in the different states radically different, but a state party could, in all probability make the decision about who it's delegates could support without any vote at all.
            1.  Thr rules prohibit counting the results (dealt with that one above).

            Michigan presents a closer question because Obama removed his name from the ballot.  So the vote there regardless of how it was carried out, favored Clinton over Obama. Of course, no one forced Obama to do it.  And he did it to improve his chances of winning Iowa -- so I'm not all that sympathetic to him on this issue.  But at the same time, I see the problem with Michigan as deeper than the problem with Florida -- so I won't argue that the Michigan "results" should count.  

            But, in fact, I'm not sympathetic to any democratic candidate who argues wholesale that democrats in two big states should have no say in the selection of our party's nominee.

            "Terror is nothing other than justice...; it is ... the general principle of democracy applied to our country's most urgent needs." M. Robespierre

            by Bartimaeus Blue on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:20:50 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Not true (0+ / 0-)

              Florida didn't equally handicap all parties because of ammendment 1, which was more of a draw for older property owners (a Clinton demographic).

              You can't count either election as is. Its revote or nothing.

              To me, the absolute most important issue ANY of us has, and this nation has, is that we are currently being ruled by a gang of immoral war criminals. -Hornito

              by discocarp on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:26:09 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  No. (0+ / 0-)

                That's not a factor that openly or plainly favored one candidate over another.  That's just another issue on the ballot that correlated with people who probably supported Clinton.  

                If you think about it, it's very different from a scenario of having one person's name on a ballot and another person's name off of it.

                "Terror is nothing other than justice...; it is ... the general principle of democracy applied to our country's most urgent needs." M. Robespierre

                by Bartimaeus Blue on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:29:33 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Different yes (0+ / 0-)

                  but that election was in no way valid.

                  To me, the absolute most important issue ANY of us has, and this nation has, is that we are currently being ruled by a gang of immoral war criminals. -Hornito

                  by discocarp on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:30:40 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  As I said. You have to argue (0+ / 0-)

                    it was so flawed (not because it favored one candidate over another) that it just wasn't an election.  You say it wasn't.

                    I don't see it as clearly.  

                    Probably the best argument is that it wasn't an election because people were told that their votes wouldn't count (that is, voter intimidation).  But even there there is no reason to think that that tactic operated to any one candidate's advantage.  In fact, it probhably even helped Obama because the support for his candidacy is probably deeper and stronger than support for Clinton is -- so Obama's supporters were probably more likely to go to the polls anyway, whereas lukewarm Clinton folks might have stayed home.

                    "Terror is nothing other than justice...; it is ... the general principle of democracy applied to our country's most urgent needs." M. Robespierre

                    by Bartimaeus Blue on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:36:42 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Nope (0+ / 0-)

                      I know lots of indies for Obama that didn't change parties only because it wasn't going to count. I know lots of dems (largely college students) that didn't vote because it wasn't going to count.

                      If you count that election you've disenfranchised a crapload of people.

                      I still say its revote or nothing. I'm fine with a revote, I'm fine with it not counting, but I am not fine with it standing as is.

                      To me, the absolute most important issue ANY of us has, and this nation has, is that we are currently being ruled by a gang of immoral war criminals. -Hornito

                      by discocarp on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:47:38 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I'm fine with a revote too. (0+ / 0-)

                        I won't argue with you there.  But aside from a general dissatisfaction with the outcome of the vote, it's really hard to point to any single problem with the vote that on its face favored one candidate over another.

                        The problem with the "I was told it wouldn't count, so I didn't vote" argument is that it doesn't itself favor any specific candidate.  It's just another reason not to think the vote was handled well -- but that doesn't mean the vote was handled unfairly.

                        That's an important distinction.  

                        "Terror is nothing other than justice...; it is ... the general principle of democracy applied to our country's most urgent needs." M. Robespierre

                        by Bartimaeus Blue on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:11:28 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

        •  Whoa there... (0+ / 0-)

 raise some good points.  I'm not saying that the rules are sacrosanct because they're the rules.  I'm the farthest thing there is from an authoritarian.  I essentially lost my TU status here after a disagreement with the admins over the definition of sexism being any reference to someone's sex and the way that it's presented.  

          So believe me when I say that I'm not a blind friend to the site.

          But in this case, I think he's right.

        •  Might try using a dictionary. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          The word "coup" can be used to characterize any surprising or controversial success. This certainly qualifies.

          In 2000, a criminal became President. In 2004, we failed to remove him.
          American Democracy, 1787-2004, RIP

          by davewill on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:10:03 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  I think the DNC always intended to seat them. (0+ / 0-)

        They assumed that the nomination would be sewn up and they could quietly do it. MI and FL would have lost the influence they were seeking, and everyone would get over it.

        I bet they wish they'd done the half delegate penalty, now.

        In 2000, a criminal became President. In 2004, we failed to remove him.
        American Democracy, 1787-2004, RIP

        by davewill on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:06:10 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  We can rule out #1 (0+ / 0-)

      Hillary doesn't have enough money to buy ads in PA - let alone to buy delegates at the convention.

      "I'm Joe Beese and I approved this message."

      by Joe Beese on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:21:56 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  WTF are you talking about? (0+ / 0-)

      #1 - the idea of Clinton trying to get pledged delegates gives the impression that the Clinton team would be working the floor with suitcases of money at the DNC.

      How, exactly did you arrive at that impression?

  •  Armando and Jerome are arguing that (19+ / 0-)

    Bush's signing statements are fine since they are "legal."

    Hillary Clinton: Running on Fumes!

    by Yoshimi on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:20:00 AM PDT

  •  I have learned so much since joining DailyKos (11+ / 0-)

    Especially about the Clintons, whom I used to revere. The telecommunications act of 1996 was the first chink in the armor - and it's been all downhill since then.

    I so want the primaries to be decided - and I don't like the Clinton tactics.

    Change the media ownership laws and reinstate the Fairness Doctrine

    by moosely2006 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:20:02 AM PDT

    •  You don't like the Clinton tactics? (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Cyber Kat, moosely2006, pileta, Mardarkin

      I don't either.  The introduction to this diary stated:

      "she and her surrogates have set out to make arguments that seek to minimize and belittle the system we have now, whether it's the caucuses, or "small states", or "black people", or whatever."

      In my opinion, Clinton in backed into a political corner right now, and has been for most of the time since Iowa.  You can tell a lot about a person's character by their behavior when they are "down" or when things are going wrong for them.  

      From what I've seen, Hillary's behavior is a bad reflection on her character, so much so that I think she is unfit to be the president of our country, regardless of her policies.  

  •  But that doesn't favor Clinton! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:


  •  Saying that the electorate would be (15+ / 0-)

    up in arms is a bit like saying the Titanic had a little accident.

    The religious fanatics didn't buy the republican party because it was virtuous, they bought it because it was for sale

    by nupstateny on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:21:07 AM PDT

  •  Is Armando a HRC supporter? (0+ / 0-)

    And does he support the strategery of coup by SD?

  •  I'm still shaking my head (12+ / 0-)

    at how someone who co-wrote "Crashing the Gates" is now clearly supporting rebuilding those same gates.

    It's the 50-state strategy, stupid.

    by SonicT on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:22:00 AM PDT

  •  But Kos, do you denounce AND reject (4+ / 0-)

    the title of Booman's post?

    that's the real issue here - not the primary or the election against that nice man McCain - but getting you to parse somebody else's words. I need to hammer that bec... becaus....

    Ohhh - look, shiny!!!!


    Join Soulforce-seeking Justice for God's GLBT children.
    I support the Democratic Nominee. McCain=

    by its simple IF you ignore the complexity on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:22:17 AM PDT

  •  Write In Barack Obama (0+ / 0-)

    Thanks kos. If anyone is concerned with this issue, support my project at Write In Barack Obama.

    Read the pledge, sign the petition, spread the word. Netroots democracy in action!!

    •  Forget writing him in-- (0+ / 0-)

      Instead, we should encourage him to run as an independent. He WOULD win against Hillary if he were running against "politics as usual" -- And he could justify some Republicans crossing over legitimately to vote for a better alternative than old man McCain.

  •  Do they really think that people (8+ / 0-)

    don't understand that it's within the rules?

    Everyone understands it's within the rules.  However, that doesn't mean that hundreds of thousands of people won't be "up in arms" and that it won't irreversibly drive a good chunk of them away from the Democratic Party forever.

  •  As for the Second Estate Nuclear Option (0+ / 0-)

    It's essentially a nuclear option, for good reason.

    "Our country right or wrong. When right, to be kept right; when wrong, to be put right" - Carl Schurz

    by RBH on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:22:47 AM PDT

  •  Bush "winning" in 2000 was within the "rules" too (7+ / 0-)

    Nothing explicitly illegal about what he did. It was unethical and slimy. And the Supreme Court should have stayed the hell out of it.

    But, it was all perfectly legal.

    •  Grow up. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Meteor Blades

      This comparison is juvenile and insulting.

      The Supreme Court itself acknowledged that it didn't really have jurisdiction (i.e., "not legal"), but that for the sake of the country, it was going to step in and put a stop to the chaos.

      And even without the intervention of the Supreme Court, there is ample evidence (see Greg Palast, for example) that Jeb Bush's office worked in ILLEGAL ways to scrub voter lists to disenfranchise Democratic voters.

      •  Limbaugh loves HIllary. (0+ / 0-)

        "CALLER:  Hi, Rush.  I total disagree with this strategy.  You setting up a Clinton-Obama reconciliation ticket.  You're going to get two of the most immoral, unscrupulous Clintons back in unchecked power and we are going to be screwed.

        RUSH:  We're already screwed.  What we have to do is limit the being screwed to as small a screwdriver as it can be.  And here.  Here's the thing.  The strategy is not to have these guys win.  They may form a fusion ticket at some point down the road.  Do you understand what the purpose of the strategery is?

        CALLER:  Yes.  To keep Clinton in, to keep Clinton in. You think they're going to claw their eyes out.

        RUSH:  No, the strategy is... Yes.  The strategy is to continue the chaos in this party.  Look, there's a reason for this.  Our side isn't going to do this.  Obama needs to be bloodied up.  Look, half the country already hates Hillary.  That's good.  But nobody hates Obama yet.  Hillary is going to be the one to have to bloody him up politically because our side isn't going to do it. Mark my words.  It's about winning, folks!"

        Mission accomplished!

      •  P.S. -- The Court did have Jurisdiction. (0+ / 0-)

        The only arbiter of whether or not the Supreme Court has jusrisdicton to hear constitutional questions is the Supreme Court.

        They heard the case on the merits and rendered a decision on the merits.

        •  Not exactly. (0+ / 0-)
          The Supreme Court operates within a set of guidelines that establish its jurisdiction.

          Furthermore, as I previously stated, the Supreme Court itself acknowledged that it did not have jurisdiction.  There's a reason the opinion in Bush v. Gore states that this opinion is NOT precedent and should NOT be applied to any other cases.

      •  Re (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Angry Mouse

        I agree with you that the comparison is stupid, but the reason it is stupid is something else.  Political party primaries (unlike the government sanctioned general election) can be decided in whatever way that the political party wants.  Here is a list of ten legitimate ways that a political party can choose its candidate in a presidential election.

        1. A series of primaries and caucuses with Byzantine rules about delegates.
        1. The meeting of droopy-eyed party bosses in smoke-filled rooms trying to determine how they will best hold onto their power.
        1. A lottery.
        1. The whim of a 9-year old girl.
        1. A decathlon.
        1. A game of chess.
        1. A decathlon and a game of chess.
        1. A fortune teller.
        1. A boxing match.
        1. A foxy boxing match.
  •  So (3+ / 0-)

    So even if it is shown by June that Hillary has a much better chance of defeating McCain than Obama does....the supers should still give it to Obama? They should give it to a guy who will lose in November?  I don't think so.  You people need to chill.  

  •  A coup by supers would be political suicide (34+ / 0-)

    In one fell swoop, the supers would alienate millions of voters, especially young people drawn into the process by the Obama campaign (some of them will swear off politics forever); create a split in the party arguably as wide and deep as the one created by Humphrey's nomination in 1968; and perhaps most importantly, nominate a candidate who has demonstrated a lack of managerial ability, is tone-deaf to the mood of the country, is damaged goods on the issue of Iraq, and is distrusted and/or disliked by tens of millions of Americans.

    But hey, "it's her turn". Damn the consequences.

    John McCain's Straight Talk Express runs on fossil fuels.

    by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:23:30 AM PDT

    •  Absolutely (11+ / 0-)

      If the supers give the nomination to Clinton (clearly within the rules), we lose.

      Clinton loses to McCain.

      I will not get a Democratic Governor in Missouri.  The Missouri House will not flip.

      We don't expand the majorities in the House and Senate.

      It is political suicide and I wonder why the Clintons are continue down that road.

      I live in Missouri.  I MUST vote for whoever gets the nomination.  I am an Obama delegate to the Congressional Distict meetings this Thursday. I hope to be voting for Obama in November.  

      I will vote for Clinton, if that is my choice.  I will not try to convince others to abstain.

      Wer kämpft, kann verlieren. Wer nicht kämpft, hat schon verloren. Bertolt Brecht

      by MoDem on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:29:19 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You're my kind of Democrat, MoDem. n/t (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MoDem, peraspera, drag0n, jnhobbs

        The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppose. - Frederick Douglass

        by Meteor Blades on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:34:42 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  not so clear cut for me (0+ / 0-)

          This really is a difficult issue. I supported hillary when she was first lady, I wanted to see her pursue a political career. I hate that the first real choice of a woman for president is someone I can't support.

          But, and I don't say this to inflame any of her supporters, how can democrats support a candidate that has been using goppie tactics to win? I'm sorry, but the race baiting and terrorism innuendo cards being played by a democratic candidate are just too much over the line. This thinking of the ends justifies the means is not what I want sitting in our WH.

          To some extent, easy for me to say that principles are important bc I'm in California, so probably safe choice.

          •  The issue is simple for me: Clinton v. McCain ... (0+ / 0-)

            ...I don't like her tactics. I don't like her much of foreign policy stance (but then I'm not keen on much of Obama's either). Neither Clinton nor Obama as president would make me happy more than about 60% of the time. And on some issues, I expect I will be screaming loudly and working to undermine her or his approaches. But I'll be damned before I argue in favor of giving the Republicans another four or eight years in the White House so that I can be happy about the direction of things 10% of the time and they can consolidate the disaster they've made of things well into the adulthood of my grandchildren.

            The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppose. - Frederick Douglass

            by Meteor Blades on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:43:55 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  but how much different is clinton from mccain? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Data Pimp

              i mean, even hillary and bill have been making the case that hillary and mccain are similar and both would be "great leaders."

              mccain opposed MTR, hillary does not, so that gives some indication of where she stands on other environmental issues, like clean potable water, and protection of wildlife as well as human rights issues.

              hillary and mccain will both continue the war.

              hillary now wants immunity from lenders from investor lawsuits in a type of tort reform, i.e., goppie policy.

              hillary and mccain both are in bed with special interests.

              i'm not seeing a lot of difference between the two.  

              •  I find this view remarkable ... (0+ / 0-)

       REALLY think there would be no difference between having McCain as president and having Clinton as president?

                These folks will disagree with you. Here's how they rate the two:

                NARAL: Clinton - 100%; McCain - 0%
                Planned Parenthood: Clinton - 100%; McCain - 0%

                American Human Society: Clinton - 100%; McCain - 40%

                National Taxpayers Union: Clinton - 17%; McCain - 88%
                Citizens for Tax Justice: Clinton - 80%; McCain - 50%

                National Association of Manufacturers: Clinton - 16%; McCain - 63%
                National Federation of Independent Business: Clinton - 12%; McCain - 100%
                Public Citizens Congresswatch: Clinton - 91%; McCain  - 15%

                ACLU: Clinton - 67%; McCain - 50%
                Leadership Conference on Civil Rights: Clinton - 85%; McCain - 15%
                Americans United for the Separation of Church and State: Clinton - 100%; McCain - 33%

                Human Rights Campaign: Clinton - 89%; McCain - 33%

                The Club for Growth: Clinton - 11%; McCain - 100%
                American Conservative Union: Clinton - 8%; McCain - 65%

                Concerned Women for America: Clinton - 11%; McCain -  100%

                National Journal - Composite Conservative Score: Clinton - 29.8%; McCain - 56.7%

                National Education Association gave Senator Clinton a grade of A; Senator McCain a grade of F.

                League of Conservation Voters's position: Clinton - 73%; McCain - 0%

                Family Research Council: Clinton - 0%; McCain - 42%
                Children's Defense Fund: Clinton - 90%; McCain - 10%

                The Genocide Intervention Network--Darfur Scores assigned Senator Clinton a grade of A+; Senator McCain a C

                U.S. Public Interest Research Group: Clinton - 91%; McCain - 41%

                American Immigration Lawyers Association: Clinton - 88%; McCain - 75%
                English First: Clinton - 0%; McCain - 100%

                AFL-CIO: Clinton - 100%; McCain - 0%

                Obviously, voting record isn't everything. And there are many disturbing aspects of Clinton's stances on issues. But to equate these two is, as I said, remarkable.

                The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppose. - Frederick Douglass

                by Meteor Blades on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:56:49 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  you ignored the issues i raised (0+ / 0-)

                  i am not equating them 100%. i absolutely HATE mccain. Just saying there is not a lot of daylight between the two.

                  one of the key issues is special interests. if the nominee is in bed with them, that affects all substantive policy, and clinton has shown that she is willing, and has, dumped liberal and progressive principles when it was politically expedient. so, what makes you think she will actually be better? she is very good at spinning and creating wiggle room, but that does not turn a bad policy into good.

                  voting records include those votes that were cast knowing bill would not pass, right? which means it includes votes that may be contrary to how a lawmaker would vote when substantive issue would truly be addressed.  

                  •  If I thought Clinton were the best candidate ... (0+ / 0-)

                    ...I wouldn't be backing Obama (by way of Edwards and  because Gore didn't run and Kucinich didn't have a chance).

                    But what is the difference between equating them and saying there is not a lot of daylight between the two?

                    What makes me think she will be better? Because on issues that I care about - and there are a lot of them on that list - she has not only voted on the right side but often been a leader.

                    Yes, there are a lot of problems with Clinton, and we've seen them close-up in this campaign. Her ties to the DLC, her sense of entitlement, the lobbyists' money she accepts, are all important issues. So, I'm happy that her chances are slim. But to suggest she is substantially no different than McCain is not only at odds with the public record, it gives cover to the McCain as moderate and maverick theme. Feeding that theme does exactly what for those of us who want to get Clinton supporters to vote for Obama in November?

                    The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppose. - Frederick Douglass

                    by Meteor Blades on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:38:11 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  clinton is more and better dems? (0+ / 0-)

                      I am also gore to Edwards to obama.

                      The difference between not a lot of daylight and equating them is one of degrees. Mccain is unequivocally worse. So Clinton and McCain are not equivalent, but damn close, too close for my comfort. Things are not all black and white, there are shades of gray.

                      Here's the thing. I thought I KNEW hillary before this primary. You are discussing how she voted and what actions she took (mystery on that one) before the primary. She has shown herself to be a person whom I would not have thought possible. Each time she engages in race baiting, innuendos, and sexism as shield and sword, I cringe to say the very least. I am each time shocked.  I'm not so sure this NEW hillary would do as you think based on her record prior to this primary. She has demonstrated a willingness to dig deeper and deeper into slimy land. If she is not the same now as before the primary, what makes you think her prior record is a valid indicator of her future conduct and actions?

                      You like to speak in generalities about her public record being good. But, I pointed out specific issues where she sucks. And sometimes worse than mccain, like on MTR. Sucking worse than mccain on MTR is not just a mining issue. IT shows how she is willing to let people die and become ill as long as mining industry keeps passing the money her way. IT shows how she is willing to let mining industry use our waterways as dumping grounds. This does not just happen in Appalachia. THIS is happening across the US and globally. I can not think of anything worse than someone intentionally adopting a policy that is causing people to become ill and die.

                      You misinterpret my remarks. I am not giving cover to moderate/maverick crap meme for mccain. I am not raising mccain up to the level of a progressive, liberal democrat; I am saying that Clinton has lowered herself to his goppie ways. Your conclusion would only be true if I was raising mccain up rather than lowering Clinton down.

                      When I came back online, I noticed this diary on rec list discussing Clinton's new Tonya Harding strategy:

                      "Her securing the nomination is certainly possible - but it will require exercising the 'Tonya Harding option.'" the official said. "Is that really what we Democrats want?"

                      The Tonya Harding Option -- the first time I've heard it put that way.
                      It implies that Clinton is so set on ensuring that Obama doesn't get the nomination, not only is she willing to take extra-ruthless steps, but in the end neither she nor Obama win the gold.

                      Can you name one other democratic presidential candidate who attacked another democrat in the primary with sexism and racism in the manner and to the degree that Clinton has done in this primary? Before this primary, the goppies stated that race would not be an issue should obama be our nominee. Now, hillary has opened the door and given them a greenlight making it "acceptable" political strategy. I'm sure the goppies would have done so anyhow to some extent, but now i think it will be worse than if hillary had not acted in this manner.

                      •  There hasn't been a primary season this close .. (0+ / 0-)

                        ...since, well, since when? Racism was certainly used against Jesse Jackson, but he never had a chance, so no need to turn the heat up too high. Sexism was certainly used against Pat Schroeder that same year, but she never got out of the starting gate. Nothing compares to this year, so it's moot point.

                        I completely agree about a lot of what you're saying about Clinton's tactics in this campaign. I am not defending her on those, and I have never been a big fan of hers or of Bill's.

                        But this is just nonsense: "You like to speak in generalities about her public record being good."

                        I gave you specifics based on what interest groups who really care about issues think of the two candidates. You told me she's in the pocket of the lobbyists. Who's speaking in generalities? I think you're speaking mostly about trustworthiness. And I agree that this is a big, fat issue. However, Obama too is a politician running for President, and therefore we can wonder about his trustworthiness, especially, to give one example, given his not-so-good post-2002 voting record on Iraq.

                        I don't think Clinton will win the nomination. And so none of us will be faced with the option of having to do something we don't want to do, which is choose not to vote for her either by abstention or otherwise. But I find it just amazing that you are seriously considering endorsing behavior that would put a conservative Republican into a position to appoint two, possibly three more Supreme Court justices, start another war or two, and, MTR aside, fail to effectively deal with environmental issues for four to eight more years.

                        That way lies madness.

                        The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppose. - Frederick Douglass

                        by Meteor Blades on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:43:27 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  madness indeed (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:

                          how can this issue be so easy for you when so many of us are struggling with it?

                          My question was: "Can you name one other democratic presidential candidate who attacked another democrat in the primary with sexism and racism in the manner and to the degree that Clinton has done in this primary?"

                          Nothing compares to this year, so it's moot point.

                          So, you appear to agree that she has reached a new low, but yet it is a moot point? If I understand you correctly, you are saying that because "nothing compares to this year," in terms of hillary's use of sexism and racism against democratic primary candidates, this issue is a "moot point"? I must be interpreting wrong, because how can a democrat turning two of the core principles of Democrats upside down ever be a moot point when the issue is voting for that Democrat to be president? My point is that she has taken this to an unprecedented new level in her belief that anything goes to get what she wants.  My point is that Hillary has done more than just objectionable "tactics."  She is dividing democrats and this nation and I think that is intentional.

                          What I mean by generalities is that you cite the general conclusions of interest groups on a broad subject area (e.g, civil rights, education) rather than citing specific issues.  Granted they had to review specific issues to reach a conclusion about a general subject area. And you may be right that it is an issue of trust, because I no longer trust that voting record as indicative of how she will act in the future.  How can anyone trust that she will stand up for human rights when she allows people to die and become sick by MTR?  How can she be trusted on environmental issues when she is willing to let corporations transform our waterways into waste dumps, not just figuratively, but literally? How can anyone trust that she will end the war in iraq when she voted for this war? Yes, hillary says she would have voted no had she known then what she knows now. Only problem is I checked into what news reports, based on government reports and officials, publicly reported prior to her war vote and all the grounds for war proclaimed by Bush were debunked within days. Yes, 3 months after war started, when she started backing off, more details were provided but basically it was the same debunking as prior to her war vote. She has never stated just what is that magical info that she did not know or reasonably should have known prior to war that she now is relying upon when she now admits her war vote was a "mistake." Yes, well, according to hillary, a "mistake" is when she lies about facts, such as Bosnia.

                          This whole issue is very frustrating for me. I have never not voted for a dem in any election. And I don't want mccain in the WH either. But I truly believe she has crossed a line that goes way beyond tactics. If what she did was just tactics, then I would vote for her as I would vote for any other democrat.  But, how can you reconcile voting for a democrat who is tearing apart our party precisely because she has turned her back on core democratic beliefs? The answer seems to be the ends of avoiding the madness of mccain presidency justifies the means of voting for her. But how do you then reconcile that the ends justifies the means is a tacky political philosophy used by goppies? The ends justify the means is what bushie does all the time, and we scream when he does. If her conduct is not sufficient reason to not vote for her, what exactly does a candidate have to say or do that would justify not voting for a democrat? I'd really like to know the answer to that.  I imagine if a democrat got caught red-handed committing a crime, we would say, ok, no vote? Is there any conduct short of criminal acts?  I just feel we are losing our selves. Fortunately, as I stated earlier, even if she succeeds in her quest, it's not likely to be an issue in California.

        •  one other point (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          if the choice had been obama or edwards or richardson or any other of the primary candidates, i would not give it a second thought in terms of voting for whoever ultimately turned out to be our party's nominee. BUT, those other candidates did not use these tactics that hillary has been using. that's an important distinction.

      •  She'll cost Michigan 2 House seats (5+ / 0-)

        The Democrats have a good chance of ousting GOP congressmen in the 7th and 9th Districts, but poll after poll shows that Obama will beat McCain in Michigan and Clinton won't.

        John McCain's Straight Talk Express runs on fossil fuels.

        by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:35:48 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  But the reason the SD rules were instituted (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bethcf4p, NJ Liberal

      was to make sure the Democrats did not put forth a "weak" candidate inviting a GOP landslide. Now apart from the Yippee candidate from the 1968 Chicago Convention, there have not been necessarily weak candidates but poorly managed campaigns and I still believe President McGovern would have been preferable to what we did end up with.

      The problem remains that the SD are there specifically to cast a veto should the rank and file's enthusiasm run away with them, or so it seems from my reading.

      •  You're right. (0+ / 0-)

        There are two problems with the concept. One, it's not clear that even with a weak candidate, that the supers dare usurp the nomination. Two, Obama is NOT a weak candidate.

        In 2000, a criminal became President. In 2004, we failed to remove him.
        American Democracy, 1787-2004, RIP

        by davewill on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:31:05 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Love the new sig line (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Dump Terry McAuliffe, bethcf4p

      Keep meaning to mention that.

      Dogs have so many friends because they wag their tails instead of their tongues. -Anonymous

      by gloryous1 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:32:48 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  HRC knows that. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      She also knows there's no way she's the nominee. She and Bill are pumping up McCain in hopes he wins so HRC can run again ASAP with "I Told You So!" bumper stickers. Sorry, but I can't come up with any other logical explanation.

  •  Let the record show (13+ / 0-)

    That when Mitt Romney realized that continuing with his quixotic bid for the Presidency would undermine his pathetic causes, and his pathetic party, Mitt Romney was gracious and stepped aside in order to allow the Republican party to unite around John McCain.

    Now the question for Clinton is this: Do you really want Mitt Romney to be viewed as a strong leader than you?

    Dragging this on and on only helps John McCain. The writing has been on the wall since 2-12. The media has been complicit and has continued to allow the Democrats to be torn to shreds by the Clintons (especially Bill's) spite at the entire thing. The time to exit has long since passed. But the time to save what dignity and respect the Clintons have within the party is upon us. If this goes on past the weekend, then the Clintons will be personas non grata for the rest of their lives within the party. And deservedly so. Look at how they repaid the black church for saving Bill's presidency...

  •  Markos is a democratic Democrat watch. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Zain, NJ Liberal, david mizner

    I'm wondering how long will it take for Kos to come out in support of a MI/FL revote, consistent with years of pontificating over people-centered rhetoric. I hope his circumstantial allegiance to Barack Obama doesn't force him to compromise one of his core operating values -- just saying.

    •  That's what bothers me (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Zain, NJ Liberal, Angry Mouse

      about the arguments of the Obama supporters.

      The pro-democratic thing to do is to support revotes, given that millions of voters were disenfranchised because of the actions of party elites.

      But to support a revote would go against the interests of Kos's new fave, so hypocrisy rules.

    •  State accountability (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Kitty, aisling, gobucky, Nancy in LA

      CSPAN re-aired portions of the DNC meetings in Aug 2006 and Aug 2007 about these vote issues. Fascinating to watch now, given events. One thing was clear, though, and this is esp true for Florida who was dealing with a more difficult situation than Michigan (which just blatantly ignored the rules, presumably because Levin was pissed they weren't picked instead of SC or NV) -- the national party desperately wanted Florida to choose a date and a process that was allowed and offered to both pay for it and vigorously promote it. There was an understanding that a new date meant voters had to go to the polls twice and the Florida Dems didn't think they could pull it off. (Yes, ironic.) The national party gave them plenty of opportunity to rectify the situation, and they chose not to.

      I feel for the voters, but they have their own leadership to blame. And I'm not remotely concerned that the delegates will not be seated. They will be.

      "This union may never be perfect, but generation after generation has shown that it can always be perfected." - Barack Obama (3.18.08)

      by lapis on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:44:20 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  It's not Kos (0+ / 0-)

      or even Obama and his supporters that are holding up a revote -- it's the party folks in those states.

      Howard Dean didn't set the rules for the primaries -- they were set by the Rules Committee, and everyone knew them months in advance. And when Obama played by the rules and took his name off the ballot in MI and curtailed his campaigning in FL, Clinton kept plugging away -- she left her name on the MI ballot likely because she knew that name recognition alone would get her the votes. And remember in MI, Kos was urging people to "Vote for Mitt" on the Republican ballot because he (and everyone) knew the Democratic vote would not count -- so how many votes did Obama (and others) lose there?

      A possible parallel would be if you go to college with someone who doesn't attend a single class or turn in a lick of homework his senior year...and yet is allowed to graduate anyway.

      You're only as popular as the last diary/comment you posted. -- Zachpunk

      by Cali Scribe on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:48:19 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  That's not true... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        david mizner

        It's the Obama surrogates in the MI legislature that's blocking this whole thing.  His lawyers are also stonewalling the deal.  FL is a different story, but for MI, let's get real: it's Obama's fault.

        •  evidence? (0+ / 0-)

          sorry, your say so doesn't sway me.

          Inconceivable! You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

          by hopeful on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:08:59 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  That's bull (0+ / 0-)

          because I went to the polls in Michigan knowing my vote as a Democrat WOULD NOT COUNT. I was ASSURED of this, and was told it was only a "gesture" -- So I crossed the line and voted for the other party, because their election DID count (to a degree) and because I felt I could help my party best by mucking with Republican numbers.

          Now, if there's a re-vote, I CANNOT VOTE!  I'm still disenfranchised. This works for Hillary, because of lot of us who didn't want to vote for her ended up tossing out vote into the "screw with the Republicans" bucket, so she KNOWS there will be a lot of Obama supporters who simply aren't allowed to do the re-vote. It's UNFAIR because we were told our vote would count, and then when we're told it will, we CAN'T VOTE because we acted on the original "won't count" information.

          I'm for the 50/50 split, or not counting Michigan at all. If we do a re-vote, it will cost me money as a taxpayer (in a state with the highest unemployment, which also happens to be home to the murder capital of the nation, so our tax money is best spent ELSEWHERE) and it will disenfranchise me a SECOND TIME. That's not acceptable.

          •  Ah, so (0+ / 0-)

            The rules apply to the electorate as individuals but not to the States who messed with the rules?  Yeah, that makes sense.  That unwashed 45% of Michiganders who didn't vote for any particular Democratic candidate seem sage.

  •  Would Clinton run as an independent if she (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mjd in florida, Mardarkin

    does not get the Democratic nomination ala Lieberman? It's been difficult to follow her logic so far. If she feels she's been denied her inevitable nomination, could she believe that she could run as an independent and win? Is she that much of a megalomaniac?

  •  If they carry out a superdelegate coup... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MoDem, moosely2006, beltane, BA BarackUS

    ...we'll see a revolt and the Clinton name will go into the political dustbin.

  •  When this is all over, assuming that civil ... (13+ / 0-)

    ...war doesn't end our chances of keeping a third Bush term from happening come November, the first order of business should be to revisit the McGovern-Fraser Commission of 1969, the Hunt Commission of 1982, the Jackson-Dukakis pact of 1988 and deal with the matter of super-delegates. Personally, with the exception of, say, ex-presidents and vice presidents, I think we should ditch them all. But we sure as hell should not be faced with this situation again.

    Of course, it would be good to see primaries replace caucuses, too. But that's an even dicier effort.

    The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppose. - Frederick Douglass

    by Meteor Blades on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:24:49 AM PDT

    •  Another reason to take over state parties (6+ / 0-)

      Quite a few of supers are party apparatchiks rather than elected officials. Hardly anyone knows who they are (and they like it that way), and the process of electing them is often indirect and cumbersome (they like that, too).

      It will take years to clean out the deadwood in many state parties. My home state of Michigan is one of the worst examples. The brainiacs who control the state party inflicted that train wreck of a "primary" on rank-and-file Democrats, and every one of them richly deserves censure.

      John McCain's Straight Talk Express runs on fossil fuels.

      by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:33:10 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Shoot (0+ / 0-)

      Let the supers keep their status but give each state 1000x the pledged delegates they have now. That will dilute the supers to oblivion and solve the "did he hit 62.5% in this district" bs at the same time.

      To me, the absolute most important issue ANY of us has, and this nation has, is that we are currently being ruled by a gang of immoral war criminals. -Hornito

      by discocarp on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:45:39 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  the thing is this (7+ / 0-)

    What I don't understand is how Clinton can go to Michigan with a straight face and say how votes should count, and that she wants these votes to count (and these folks BELIEVE her)  all the while she is floating ideas of trying to get pledged delegates for Obama, and to get Super delegates to overrule what the voters have chosen.  It doesn't make any sense to me.  It may be within the rules for HRC to try to get the Super delegates to go with her, but I sure would feel cheated if the Super delegates did this, as would a lot of other folks.

    What some seem to not realize is that it is not Hillary winning that was ever the problem.  If she could have won without these tactics, I would have happily voted for her.  If HRC didn't plan correctly and allocate funds appropriately or foresee the possibility that she wouldn't just be handed the nomination, whose fault is that?  That is what the MSM should be asking her.  and her surrogates.  

    She didn't earn every vote, but she stil expects to get the nom.  I just shake my head and wonder how this got so awful.  and there is mccain, trapsing the world on the taxpayer's dime without a peep about any of his bs gaffes and such.  free pass for mccain while we sit here and mince words and split hairs.  

    •  I keep saying (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Dump Terry McAuliffe

      in the spirit of March Madness:

      If HRC wants to count Michigan and Florida, then the practice shots made at halftime with no defense should count for those teams.

      Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. Thomas Jefferson 6/11/1807

      by Patriot4peace on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:41:22 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Right on. (5+ / 0-)

    This couldn't be more clear if you sprayed it with Windex.

  •  HRC: Pledged delegates are "like superdelegates" (4+ / 0-)

    Philidelphia Daily News reports that Senator Clinton is lumping all delegates as free to roam. Even the pledged dels. Geesh.

  •  Why superdelegates are 'free agents' (4+ / 0-)

    There's a very good reason why delegates are free to cast their lot with any candidate until the last moment, and we are living through that reason right now:  no candidate can make the required number (2,025 in this case) early enough in the primary season to head off excessive expenditures and in-fighting. It's clear that the rules were written for that reason: to make sure that the party can have a clear nominee before too big of a mess is made.

    We are now facing the circumstances for which these provisions were made, and it is time for the superdelegates to do their job and align behind our nominee.

    •  And HRC thinks she's George Steinbrenner (n/t) (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      John McCain's Straight Talk Express runs on fossil fuels.

      by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:33:36 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  But SDs are also usually elected officials (0+ / 0-)

      so that if they do ignore the will of their electorate, they may have to pay at a later date.

      •  They have to have a case (0+ / 0-)

        to make to their constituents if they go against the will of their own districts. At this point, the case is already made: there's no way that Clinton can make up the deficit in pledged delegates or popular vote, and every dollar spent in prolonging the primaries could, and should, be spent to defeat McCain instead.

        That's a case that any Democrat could make with a clear conscience. Maybe that wasn't true until Michigan and Florida failed to work out their "do-overs". But now that they are out of the game, it's a clear and compelling argument for any Democrat in any state.

      •  True, and some don't seem to care. (0+ / 0-)

        My congresscritter is Diane Watson and she is pledged to the sisterhood, in spite of (1) the fact that her district went to Obama by 30+ points and (2) she offered some amazing comments of support for Obama on HuffPo in February.  She has since remarked that she received threatening emails over her support of HRC but is standing on principle and doesn't care if she loses her Congressional seat.  Of course, no one ever challenges her, either.

        As a constituent, I wrote her an impassioned (but polite) email yesterday asking her reconsider her superdelegate pledge and support Sen. Obama.

  •  All this posturing about the rules (0+ / 0-)

    is pretty much moot anyway. The supers would NEVER overturn the pledged delegate leader, even though they technically could if they wanted to.

    by dagnabbit on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:25:15 AM PDT

    •  Some would, some wouldn't. The question ... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      peraspera, greenchiledem how many? If Clinton and Obama arrive in Denver without there being a clear winner - that is somebody with half of the delegates plus one in her or his pocket - then there is always the chance for a second ballot. And when that's the case, anything could happen.

      The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppose. - Frederick Douglass

      by Meteor Blades on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:29:55 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Aren't they already? (0+ / 0-)

      Look at Richardson's endorsement.  Hillary won the state, but he endorsed Obama anyway.  (Even after he said that SDs should follow their constituents.)

      •  She won the pop vote (0+ / 0-)

        He won the most delegates.

        There are a few on each side that don't reflect constituents, but I think as a general trend they will end up backing the pledged delegate leader.

        by dagnabbit on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:57:58 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  the popular vote is irrelevent (0+ / 0-)

    as long as we're talking rules.

    •  or maybe irrelevant (0+ / 0-)
    •  No I don't think it is. (0+ / 0-)

      In terms of national rules, no the popular vote doesn't matter at all, but if Clinton were to win the popular vote overall (but not the pledged delegate count, though this is unlikely to happen), she would play up that fact to the supers, and give it as a reason to cast a vote for her. However, when Obama leads in both pledged delegates and popular vote, any argument for why Hilary should get the nomination is pretty much non-existent. More importantly, popular vote count does matter in the context of each state. Delegate allocations are largely based on percentages of the registered Democratic candidate voters by state and district.

      •  The problem is (0+ / 0-)

        that caucuses are usually not taken into account when counting popular vote -- so states like WA, IA, ME, and others get left out.

        Plus, what about the fact that a lot of Republicans crossed the line to vote for Clinton in states like TX on the urging of Rush Limpbough, thus inflating her numbers?

        You're only as popular as the last diary/comment you posted. -- Zachpunk

        by Cali Scribe on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:04:42 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •   Primary rules are like the Electoral College (0+ / 0-)
  •  Hillary has it all but clinched (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bethcf4p, peraspera, drag0n, greenchiledem

    Hillary Math III:

    Delegates=Pledged Delegates + (SuperDuper Delegates (-Boutique State Delegates/Latte-Sipping Voters(+/- Volvo Drivers)%Years as First Lady (+Sniper Bullets Dodged)))~Caucus States/States with "North" or "South" in their names)))+/-Comics named "Sinbad"))))) = HRC Victory!  Woohoo!

    When you aim for the lowest common denominator, you rarely miss your mark... Remember, it's only a few dollars away from eccentric to insane...

    by wry twinger on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:25:55 AM PDT

  •  Few words... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    ...but you are right on points.

    You are responsible if I fail my calculus class.  

    "I'm all in favor of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of fools. Let's start with typewriters" Solomon Short

    by RedMask on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:26:02 AM PDT

  •  I remember 1968 (5+ / 0-)

    where the party elite settled the nomination before the convention had even started. Major UGGGGGGGLLLY. Not only that, it wrecked the party for 8 years, maybe even 24 years, if one counts Carter as an outlier.  Let's hope we don't revisit that one.

    We can't have acquittals, we've got to have convictions." Pentagon Chief Counsel Haynes on military tribrunals in Gitmo.

    by sailmaker on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:26:06 AM PDT

    •  It was a little more complicated than ... (5+ / 0-)

      ...that. Wallace voters did their part to wreck the party that year too, eventually becoming Nixon and Reagan Democrats, and then Thurmond Republicans.

      The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppose. - Frederick Douglass

      by Meteor Blades on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:27:19 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  backdate that to Thurmond Dixiecrats (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Meteor Blades

        then to Wallace Independents and so on. Strom stood on his head on the Capitol grounds years before he decided to go GOP.

        •  True. But at first some of the Wallace Dems ... (0+ / 0-)

          ...shifted their votes to Nixon and then to Reagan hoping that someday the Democrats would return to the good ol' days. When that didn't happen, most of them switched to the Republicans (at least for Congressional and Presidential voting purposes) permanently. That's why I called them Thurmond Republicans - they edged ever closer to the switch to the "party of Lincoln," anathema in prior years.

          The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppose. - Frederick Douglass

          by Meteor Blades on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:43:24 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Henry Wallace (0+ / 0-)

            of 48?  Which Wallace?

            The Wallace/Truman split in '48 was pretty devastating; all the real Lefties got purged, blacklisted, etc.  Then came Acheson and all the lies, loyalty oaths, and the ramping up of the National Security State.

            Or were you talking about George Wallace in the late 60's?

            The ruling class has been dividing whites and blacks for 400 years--it is nothing new.

            by Kab ibn al Ashraf on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:57:56 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  Any Super Delegate (0+ / 0-)

    coup will be under the guise of "National Security".  

    If Clinton wants to play chicken lets go.  

    "Sometimes I wish I could change my nickname" Me

    by givemhellHarryR on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:26:34 AM PDT

  •  This Democrat sez (3+ / 0-)

    Stick to the pledged delegates.  A nomination by coup would not be right, Kos:


    Dogs have so many friends because they wag their tails instead of their tongues. -Anonymous

    by gloryous1 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:26:40 AM PDT

  •  As usual, Armando/BigTentDemocrat is right ... (4+ / 0-)

    ... on the facts but wrong in how he presents them. It never ceases to amaze me that all of the intelligence in the world can't produce better results than being dumb as a doorknob if the smartest person around lacks the people skills needed to persuade his opponents.

    Unfortunately, this is all too often the same reason why our party's candidates lose important national elections. Polls consistently show that the public prefers Democratic policies to Rethuglican ones, but we frequently alienate voters on a personal level, and that is what makes the difference in winning the White House or not.

  •  a teacher's prospective on FL and MI (6+ / 0-)

    I teach math at a community college and the following analogy came to me (which I had posted earlier at MYDD).

    I have a class with 50 students. On the first day of class they are given a syllabus explaining the rules of the class. All the students agree to follow these rules.

    If I catch 2 students breaking the rules on an exam, the grades they otherwise would have received are replaced with zeros. These rules are well known in advance as published in my syllabus.

    The students then ask for a redo, but I don't do that as that would reward cheaters and would be unfair to the other 48 students in my class who followed the rules.

    Finally, if these students don't like the rules or feel they were treated unfairly, they can always appeal to the "Dean"!

    •  Uh (0+ / 0-)

      to make your analogy correct you'd have the principal (the party establishment) making decisions that end up hurting the voters.

    •  Flawed (0+ / 0-)

      Your kids cheated - they each made that choice.  The 2 million people in Michigan and FLA who voted DID NOT make that choice.  They were told when to vote.  But you are going to give them all a zero.

      Keep using that argument.  can you say "President McCain"

      •  Okay, (0+ / 0-)

        so the two students cheat and get zeroes -- and they're the star pitcher and hitter on the school's baseball team. Because they cheated and got zeroes, they get kicked off the team and the team loses the championship game. It was the actions of the players (FL/MI party folks) not the team (rank and file Democrats) that contributed to the team's loss (loss of delegates).

        You're only as popular as the last diary/comment you posted. -- Zachpunk

        by Cali Scribe on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:08:52 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •   Jerome Armstrong's Willful Stupidity (5+ / 0-)

    I don't see anything wrong with this title. Not in the slightest.

    "A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves."--Edward R. Murrow

    by Scarce on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:27:36 AM PDT

  •  Hillary does not posess the (3+ / 0-)

    personal qualities of Romney and Guliani who had the dignity to leave the race on good terms with their party. Hillary may be right on most issues but as a human being she is on par witht he worst the Republicans have to offer.

    After Obama's eighth straight victory, Penn told reporters: "Winning Democratic primaries is not a qualification or a sign of who can win the general election.

    by nevadadem on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:27:56 AM PDT

  •  Word! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    This information cannot leave this room. Ok? It would devastate my reputation as a dude. Relentless!

    by ablington on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:28:07 AM PDT

  •  of course (0+ / 0-)

    Obama and his supporters have stymied any effort to hold primaries that will count in two of the biggest states -- Michigan and Florida -- because they put his lead in the popular vote at risk.

    We wouldn't dare risk finding out whether the people support Obama -- better to do it by fiat and "split" the votes of those states.

    Heck, why don't we do that in the general election too -- let's just split the votes in MS, AL, SC, UT, IN, and GA -- that way the democrat will be sure to win.  

    •  Obama wins MI and loses FL (0+ / 0-)

      in a real election, I think.  No one is afraid of an election.  What people do fear is super wealthy Clinton backers paying for it and setting the rules.

      The ruling class has been dividing whites and blacks for 400 years--it is nothing new.

      by Kab ibn al Ashraf on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:00:04 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  How has Obama (0+ / 0-)

      or his supporters "stymied" an effort to hold a re-vote? Just because they don't want to take money that's going to be needed to campaign against McCain in the fall to pay for it?

      Obama played by the rules...guess that just makes him a "sucker" in the eyes of Clinton supporters.

      You're only as popular as the last diary/comment you posted. -- Zachpunk

      by Cali Scribe on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:11:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  ok, so. . . . (0+ / 0-)

        you're not against a revote, just one that costs money?

        and even if it doesn't cost Obama or the taxpayers any money, you're against it

        and, of course, if it did cost Obama or the taxpayers any money, you'd be against it for those reasons to

        but you're not actually against a revote, you're just against any circumstances that would allow a revote, no matter what those circumstances are

        •  I WANT a revote! (0+ / 0-)

          Don't turn my words against me -- a revote would be well within the rules stating that the primary can't take place earlier than the specified date.

          A fair revote, where both candidates have the same amount of time to campaign, perhaps even a debate in the revoting state(s), would be the ideal situation -- but it's the state legislators that have voted it down, not Obama or Clinton.

          You're only as popular as the last diary/comment you posted. -- Zachpunk

          by Cali Scribe on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:34:21 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  As usual... (6+ / 0-)

    Armando talks in circles just so he can be the contrarian.

  •  I'm so annoyed (0+ / 0-)

    that we are in this mess over Florida and Michigan! How the hell did this happen (that's rhetorical). It just makes me crazy that here we are mired in this muck, when our focus should be elsewhere. What were Dean and the DNC thinking? What a disaster, honestly.

    •  Dean and the DNC? (0+ / 0-)

      What were MI and FL officials thinking?  The rules were laid out, they were warned, and they did it anyway.  There's gotta be repercussions for going against your own national party.

      •  I hear you and I don't (0+ / 0-)

        disagree but nonetheless, that should have been anticipated by Dean and the DNC. Is that asking too much? I should hope not, my fellow Buckeye, I like to think they are capable of some foresight and what it would mean to tell voters their votes won't be counted. In Florida. Again.

  •  There ARE no rules (0+ / 0-)

    just out of curiosity......if the super delegates should be expected to cast their votes for the delegate leader, what purpose do they serve?

    It's not a war, it's an occupation

    by PRESSmUP on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:28:29 AM PDT

    •  Better question. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      If the superdelegates are expected to overrule the votes of their party electorate, what purpose do they serve?

      "Without contraries is no progression."

      by Mardarkin on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:33:41 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  In an eventuality (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Joe Beese, Mardarkin

        that the candidate with the pledged delegate lead proves completely unable to serve as President (say, if McCain was a Democrat instead of a Republican and continued to have "senior moments"), that might be a good reason for the supers to step in and overrule the "will of the people". Or if there was some sort of huge scandal that came out between the last primary and the convention (and no, Rev. Wright or the Tuzla Two-Step don't count as "huge" -- something more like a candidate being caught with child porn, or taking money from foreign governments in exchange for favors once elected).

        But when faced with two competent but human candidates, where either one would make a better President than the dude currently in office, then the "will of the people" in terms of delegate count should prevail.

        You're only as popular as the last diary/comment you posted. -- Zachpunk

        by Cali Scribe on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:19:27 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  please don't misinterpret my question (0+ / 0-)

        and as an FYI...I was in the "anyone but Hillary" camp a year ago, and my top rated candidate fell out early (Dodd).

        But your rephrasing of my question makes no sense.

        To repeat my question...if super-delegates simply add their respective weight to current delegate counts, why bother? Just go with the current delegate counts.

        It's not a war, it's an occupation

        by PRESSmUP on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:21:29 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Innocent misinterpretation. (0+ / 0-)

          I believed your "what purpose do they serve?" comment to be an invocation of the superdelegate's right to go with conscience, electorate be damned.

          To answer your question: in this case their purpose would be nil.

          To answer my own question: if they overrule party votes, their purpose is in contradiction with the very namesake of their party.

          I think we're coming to a conclusion about superdelegates here.  But what could it be?

          "Without contraries is no progression."

          by Mardarkin on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:55:12 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  It is time to end this thing (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    People need to scream from the rooftops: it is time to end this thing NOW.

  •  Can all the FL and MI Dems (6+ / 0-)

    focus on the fact that their state legislators sold them out? I know that there is more to the legislation in FL than the primary date, but if those "leaders" had any common sense, they would have gone to the DNC with their problem beforehand instead of just hoping for the best. They knew the rules, and they decided to be assholes about the rules.

    Also, FL and MI voters, you are not being disenfranchised. You still have every opportunity to vote in the Presidential, State and Local elections. There is no constitutional law that says you have a right to vote in a party primary. How a party nominates a candidate is up to the party. The Democrats have rules and your leaders broke them. Don't blame the DNC or anyone but your state representatives.

  •  Super delegates should only come into play (0+ / 0-)

    if Obama and Clinton are EXACTLY tied at the end of the primaries.  If that becomes the case, then the super delegates need to cast their votes according to their personal preferene to break the tie.  

  •  Superdelegate BS (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cali Scribe

    What really annoys me is that no one is saying, "Superdelegates shouldn't be able to choose their own candidate."  What IS being said is that Superdelegates should pay attention to who is being supported and not overturn that based on arm-twisting.  Superdelegates should vote for whoever they think is best, but they should also take into account what overturning the popular vote/delegate total would do to that candidate.

    It's like watching an unknown winning a boxing match vs. the world champ and asking him halfway why he didn't knock his opponent out in the first round.

    by bsmcneil on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:30:25 AM PDT

  •  Hillary's Mythical Path to Victory (4+ / 0-)

    Peter Daou, Clinton's Internet Director, blogged yesterday about "Three Myths About the Democratic Race", which he says are "Obama is not running a negative campaign", "Clinton cannot win by delegates", and "Superdelegates nominating Clinton would override the will of the people".

    It's a load of crap.

    The "Obama's negative" isn't so wrong as it is wrongheaded: Obama's negative comments on Clinton are substantive, and I don't see anyone claiming Obama is a saint. It's just more Bush-style "equivalence" between Clinton's wildly, falsely negative campaigns without much positive balance, and Obama's routinely negative criticism of Clinton's attacks and lies.

    But the "Clinton can win the delegate race" blabber is really wrong. It again turns on the Clinton idea of  "equivalence" between a 10% Obama lead and "nearly tied". It pretends that Clinton can win the 80% of remaining primary votes necessary to win the delegate race, when she's at best likely to win maybe 50% of those votes - 80% is as possible as is Obama having a membership in Spitzer's hooker club.

    And then there's the "Superdelegates coup" lies. Once again, Obama's 10% lead is converted into some false "equivalence": delegates are "split", the will of the people is therefore "split",superdelegates must "break the deadlock". Nonsense.

    The only worthwhile value in that blog entry is where we can see the desperation of Clinton supporters in eating that dogfood, defying logic, acting out some kind of persecution complex.

    The rules of course allow all this. But decency and any sense of how to win the general election for a Democrat absolutely prohibit it.

    "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

    by DocGonzo on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:30:31 AM PDT

  •  Candidate who wins the popular vote and pd vote (0+ / 0-)

    should get the nomination.   FL and MI should be counted, MI with some compromise on the uncommitted delegates.

    If Clinton is behind on both of these measures, and Obama has not had a major scandal, he should be the nominee.

    •  The problem with even counting popular votes (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Cali Scribe, gobucky

      is that -- precisely BECAUSE popular vote count doesn't matter in the declaration of a winner -- numerous states chose to hold caucuses instead of primaries in support of the election of delegates. Caucuses have much lower vote counts, and some caucus states haven't even submitted vote counts, only delegate counts. So it's pretty thorny even trying to assess who "wins" the popular vote.

      Liberal parenting funnies at The Hausfrau Blog

      by jamfan on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:52:17 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Maybe we should take "Loyalty Oaths" (0+ / 0-)

    simplicity is the most difficult of all things

    by RichardWoodcockII on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:30:54 AM PDT

  •  Who is this Armando again? n/t (0+ / 0-)
  •  Last time I checked, blacks lived (0+ / 0-)

    in NY, CA and Ohio. Maybe Kos needs to rethink his devisive language before pounding out on his keyboard such stupidity!

  •  What if Florida and Michigan had played... (0+ / 0-) the rules? Does that matter to Obama supporters (of which I am one)? Didn't the popular will of the people of Florida and Michigan get subverted by the party elite in those states? It's not like the people said, "Let's start earlier and risk getting our votes not counted."

    OK, so at this point she still wouldn't be caught up, but it doesn't mean it's completely irrelevant. Also, no one needs to say, "Well, we don't really know how they'd vote if it counted." because we at least have an idea.

    Any argument that includes not including those two states basically asserts that one doesn't care about the popular will of those states; we should just give in to the bad decisions of their elected officials/party elite.

    •  Your remedy is worse than the original wrong (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      brklyngrl, Joe Beese

      You're condoning flagrant disregard for agreed-on party rules and giving the middle finger to the other 48 states that chose to play by the rules.

      Full disclosure: I'm from Michigan, and I don't want the results of the train wreck of a "primary" the party elders inflicted on us to count.

      John McCain's Straight Talk Express runs on fossil fuels.

      by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:38:21 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I didn't have a rememdy. (0+ / 0-)

        I just don't think we should use Florida and Michigan as some sort of positive argument for Obama. What I see is this (and it hasn't happened yet, but I could see it happening): if FLA and MICH were counted, Clinton leads the delegate and popular vote. However, those two don't count so Obama leads both delegates and pop. vote. If that were the case, would we still be able to use the same self-righteous rhetoric that the "people have spoken"? Doesn't seem like it to me.

        It hasn't happened yet, so it just seems like a matter of principle to me. I just don't like saying MI and FL voters don't matter because their party elite was greedy.

        •  You don't know--- (0+ / 0-)

          ---who would have led in FL and MI if real primaries had been run in those states.  The votes that were held were tainted by Obama being off the ballot in MI, and by the fact that no candidates campaigned in either state.  Voters were told that their votes didn't, so many didn't vote.  My guess is that Obama would have won in MI (he polls higher there), and that FL would have been very close either way.  But that's just blowing smoke out my ass; it means about as much as saying we should count the results of the preference polls in those two states as if they were, you know, real primaries.

          The popular vote meme as a metric of victory is specious anyway; that we play into that meme just enables Clinton to drag her defeat out.  

    •  If FL/MI (0+ / 0-)

      had played by the rules, I think it likely that Obama would have won MI (because more voters would have participated in the MI Dem primary and not jumped over to the Repubs), while Clinton would have still taken FL -- making it either a wash or perhaps a small Clinton delegate victory.

      Suppose instead of encouraging people in MI to vote for Mitt, Kos (and others) had encouraged them to vote "uncommitted", and the "uncommitted" held an edge over Clinton. Think she's still want those results to stand, proving that more people in MI were in the ABC (Anyone But Clinton) camp?

      You're only as popular as the last diary/comment you posted. -- Zachpunk

      by Cali Scribe on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:29:21 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Obama supporters...please vote 'Present' (0+ / 0-) us all a favor and just cast your vote the way Obama prefers it...'Present'.

    What has Obama voted for?  What record does he have?  What does it say about Obama that he voted against the war in Iraq, had the intelligence report placed before him turned out to be accurate?

    Does armchair quarterbacking and excellent hindsight really amount to anything?

    •  You obviously know how to log on to the internet (0+ / 0-)

      and reach sites other than your homepage. So I suggest you go to and you will be able to answer your own questions. And if you're really in an investigative mood you can also research the votes and records of Senator Clinton, Senator McCain, and any other Senator or Representative your little heart desires.  

      All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

      by anna789 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:31:03 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  lets not belittle anyone (0+ / 0-)

    except you know like the womens studies set and the dirty hippies.

  •  You have to agree with the Title, Markos (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ILDem, peraspera

    You have to agree with the Title, Markos. It's obvious and has been for awhile now.

    It pains me to see Jerome fall victim to the Clintonista 'word game' infection, but there is no doubt he has. It's not only intellectually dishonest and disingenuous, it IS "Willful Stupidity".

    I expect such things from Armando. He has always had my respect for fighting for Democrats and progressive. But he has not translated that into dealing with other people and his brand of communication has always been the way it is now.

    And to think, he tried to run me out of DailyKos because of my DLC leanings. Or whatever he called it when I refused to join in on trashing every Democrat that didn't support a fillibuster or the fact that I supported General Clark.

    And now he is supporting a DLC Democrat himself. Heck, I would join him if I thought she was the best candidate and we didn't have to play all these 'word games' and redefine the definition of what 'is' is.

    It's not a sign of weakness to learn from a mistake. It's a sign of stupidity to keep doing the same things over and over without ever learning~Dave Dial

    by DAVE DIAL on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:31:40 AM PDT

  •  Rally cry: "Worst since the Dred Scott decision" (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    If Obama is ahead substantially (100 or more) in the pledged delegate lead, and likewise (100K or more) in the popular vote lead, then I would say a decision of the superdelegates to deny him the nomination would be the worst affront to African-Americans in U.S. history since the Dred Scott decision. That decision ruled that slaves were the mere property of their owners with no civil rights.  A superdelegate decision against Obama will rule that the votes of African-Americans do not count as much as the votes of white people.

    Such an overturning will tear apart the Democratic party in the same way the partly leaders symbolized by Richard Daley's heavy handed tactics tore apart the 1968 Democratic convention. Clueless HHH was said to have kissed the TV screen when he saw his nomination being confirmed, ignoring the implications of the tear gas in the streets below his hotel.

    No sane person can contemplate the superdelegates making such a decision. (Dred Scott's opponent in the Dred Scott vs Sanford decision went insane.) Personally I think Hillary Clinton is smarter than HHH was, although more driven to get the nomination.

    •  Hey some of the "strict constructionalists" (0+ / 0-)

      and original intent guys think SCOTUS got Dredd Scott right the first time; it is amazing how quickly things can backslide in this country.

      •  On the strict constructionalists (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Cali Scribe

        Would they be for or against torture and warrantless wiretapping? IMO, against because that's what the constitution says. They would also be against federal funding of faith-based initiatives. I think we should stop calling them strict constructionalists and call them what they really are: reactionary republicans.

      •  Exactly the point about the "rules" (0+ / 0-)

        The Dred Scott decision, while possibly within the "rules" of the Constitution at the time, closed off the last legal hope of avoiding the U.S. Civil War. Lincoln and others believed that the Civil War could have been avoided if slavery was confined to the states where it was legal at the time of the founding of the U.S. The idea was that slavery would die out, since new free-labor states in the Union would out-compete the South which was falling far behind the North by 1860. It's also Ron Paul's point that slavery died out in other countries (e.g. Great Britain) without a civil war. If Chief Justice Roger Taney had had an ounce of brains, he would have foreseen the havoc he was creating. He died of old age during the Civil War himself, having seen part of the carnage he helped create.

        Similarly, Richard Daley et al. were entirely within the "rules" of the time when they gave the nomination to HHH, in spite of the primary results which had McCarthy and Kennedy winning against the continuation of the Vietnam War. Sticking pig-headly by the rules can lead to catastrophe.

        So too will be the 2008 Democratic convention if some "rules" allowed method is allowed to violate the expressed will of the voters.  Hillary Clinton should not want to go down in history along with Taney.

    •  Progress on the "fractional humanity" front (0+ / 0-)

      If the superdelegates throw a coup for Hill-dog, then I guess black voters in America could get all angry about it, or they could look at the bright side: their "fractional humanity" index is getting up there close to 99 percent of human!


      From the rich to the poor, only one thing trickles down.

      by jimbo92107 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:39:39 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  You know, (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    byteb, rclendan, LNK

    sometimes you've got to stop being "evenhanded". There are people who will step all over you if you are. The Clintons lost their priveleges when they decided that Hillary should not just continue to run, but run in such a way as to drag Obama as far down as possible. It's possible to get out of the way (Rudy, Romney) or continue, but not demonize (Huckabee) or concede even in an extremely close race when you see you have run out of feasible options (Gore). We've gone on a bit about Bush and Clinton being alarmingly similar when it comes to unthinking loyalty an an inability to move on in the face of defeat, but more and more there seems to be something to that.

    When we talk about "spine", we've complained that we need more people who are "fighters", and that's true. That's probably one thing that some find appealing about the Clintons. But we also need smart fighters, not people who fight without caring about the collateral damage. Knowing when to concede is a good skill. You don't want to do it too early, but you don't want to do it too late either.

    Barack Obama will only become president if enough people pay attention, so pay attention, dammit!

    by JMS on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:32:07 AM PDT

    •  JMS: HRC supporters, high level, told me (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      they still think she's the best nominee because she is more of a fighter, more determined to win.

      I'm just quoting.

      There's an old saying that the person who wins an election is the one who WANTS it the most.

      Best Diary of the Year?

      by LNK on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:40:37 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Correct.. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      And the golden rule of primary politics is that you never say anything to suggest that your opponent is incapable of serving as president. Thats when you begin to eat your own, and it's all downhill from there. Hillary crossed that line when she suggested that Obama was not capable of being president, while at the same time, stating that McCain was.

      "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing" - Edmund Burke

      by rclendan on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:00:32 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Rudy & Romney dropped out of the GOP nom... (0+ / 0-)

      ...because it's the GOP, a hierarchical and paternalistic party with elders and leaders with power and an observant rank and file that don't complain and stand in line.

      The Democratic Party is anything but hierarchical, we an not an observant rank and file. We are not willing to be follow.

      We're a relational collection of constituencies glued together by our beliefs in the democratic process. We fight to the end. Just like Obama who, if he wanted to avoid a convention rules fight, would have supported a revote in Mi.

      We've fighters, and smart fighters, we even have leaders, but our fully distributed system is dominated by a lack of followers. For some cockamamie reason(s) (youth? victimhood? discrimination?, Democrats view following as weakness, fighting as powerful. We're battle-focused, always the fighter, never the winner. With busy heads so far down on the desk we can't see past our own simple, personal, local needs.  

      HR 676 or California's SB-840 - the only health reform proposals worth my vote.

      by kck on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:40:08 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  its hard out here for a democrat (4+ / 0-)

    Will I ever be able to be a proud democrat standing on the winning and right side of the issues?  


    Because they way the clinton's and their supporters are handling this, I don't see it happening.

  •  no matter who wins, it will feel illegitimate (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    to one side or another, not JUST Obama supporters will feel this way if HRC wins, HRC supporters will feel it because of FL/MI! Bad situation all around is what we have here. I'm on the fence, and feel Obama win would be seen as more legitimate, but diehard Clinton supp. won't see it as legit. WE LOSE in 08, if there isnt some major unity work done!  Everyone says dream ticket is dead, but may it be the only fixer in all of this?

    •  FL /MI (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bethcf4p, mjd in florida, chicago DEM

      FL and MI wont change a damn thing. In the end we'll be able to give clinton a 55-45 win in both and even doing the math then she would still lose.

      Clinton people need to step away from the koolaid table.

      •  yeah, so why bother (0+ / 0-)

        voting is so stupid

        we already know the result

      •  call the koolaid table, whatever you want, but (0+ / 0-)

        thats how people will feel, thats why we will need major work or a joint ticket if we have any hope of winning. seen the polls lately? McCain beating both by similar margins, largely because each nominee is losing a big chunk of dems.
        hmmm, i wonder why, i guess we can just label it kool-aid drinkers and only worry about our candidate winning, not the party.

        •  Do you seriously believe that FL and MI are fair? (0+ / 0-)

          Who seriously believes that the FL and MI elections were a fair indicator of the potential primary voters of those states?

          Yes some people voted in those elections, but who can deny that the lack of names on MI's ballot and the lack of campaigning efforts in FL did not seriously and substantially affect the results?

          I have not seen a single credible or plausible argument that says those two elections were a fair indicator of the way the delegates should be divided.

    •  Good comment (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      I agree that Clinton's supporters would feel the game was stopped with 2 minutes to go. Why wouldn't Obama allow for re-votes in Michigan and Florida.

      I have been hearing for some time -- you must compete in all states to truely be a national party. Well then -- let's compete in those states.

    •  I disagree (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dark daze

      The race is close, but there is nothing illegitimate in the FL MI situation. They knowingly broke the rules. HRC supporters keep trying to frame the issue as if those voters are being disenfranchised by the DNC, but it was their own state legislators who sold them up the river. Also, I think the high turnout of Repub crossovers at the behest of Rush also calls her wins into question, imo. But, she keeps proving that she has no interest in actual change, just in getting into the WH.

      Once we have a candidate, the people who are truly Democrats will come together, those

      •  you can disagree, but thats how (0+ / 0-)

        people will feel if their candidate loses, i'm hearing it already... after a year and half long heavily invested/watched campaign, the losers will feel like CRAP, and they'll feel its illegitimate, whether it is or isnt

        •  Exactly! (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          The Democrats in Florida and Michigan could not stop the legistlatures from changing the primary dates.

          So what do they do in this exciting election year -- watch their votes count for nothing.

          How fair is that to those two states?

        •  Some people (0+ / 0-)

          But, my guess is that if they really want to win this election, they'll still vote Dem. Yes, this has been a very intense and hard fought primary season, but it is not the GE. If they can't rein in their emotions, they're going to spend another four years kicking themselves.

          •  i agree, they will kick themselves (0+ / 0-)

            but i also know that people wont just vote dem after this contested election, Obama is winning, but not by ablowout, it IS close, and FL/MI does make more complicated. what we need is some major unity work/or maybe a joint ticket....

          •  You are right (0+ / 0-)

            Some of this will heal, but some will not, and in a close election you need every vote and every supporter.

            Can you imagine how much could be accomplished if we all had a one common purpose of defeating a Republican and not tearing each side apart.

    •  I agree (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      At this point, fortunately or unfortunately, the only way to truly stanch the hemorrhaging of this incipient "civil war" is to cobble together a "dream ticket" to suit both camps - but with Obama on top.

      Who could say no to this?

      Better yet, what Democrat would vote AGAINST this ticket?

      No one.

      Obama in 2008 and Hillary in 2012 or 2016?

      What other way is there out of this hell?

      " ... or a baby's arm holding an apple!"

      by Lavocat on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:47:00 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  yep, i think it will be the best (0+ / 0-)

        way... its ideal to have an Obama/Clinton ticket to bridge the gap, some are saying FL/MI mess is silly/ HRC supporters shouldnt look at it that way, well, they will, they already are, and it will cost us dearly (Losing White House) This is the only reason i propose the ticket, and I believe party leaders will see this as well, especially as 55% up are saying they wont vote for other candidate if theirs loses (a dumb way of thinking, but reality, including friends of mine on both sides)

      •  no, the only way to heal the party (0+ / 0-)

        is to have a legitimate election, where one side wins fair and square.

        That will shut me up

  •  meh (0+ / 0-)

    "civil war"?

    That spurs dialogue

    Edwards Democrats ActBlue LA-01, NC-08, IN-06, KY-01, NC-09, IA-03, WA-08

    by LaEscapee on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:33:17 AM PDT

  •  well (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    well if super delegates did overthrow the primary and put Clinton in, I think it would actually lead to the birth of a third party.

    Perot showed it was possible.

    •  Not now... (0+ / 0-)

      ...The new party would've had to have had some Republican-leaners too, in order to keep it from spiraling off into a competition with the Green Party for .5% of the far-leftist vote, which would happen if Obama's supporters got together and started a new party. Not that Obama's supporters are all that radical, but there aren't many vestiges of social conservatism in that group and that would lead to a drift in internal policy-making (no internal check on social policy) that wouldn't serve us well nationwide.

      It wouldn't work. Unlike Bush's (former) base and Bill Clinton's base, Obama's base cannot form a party at this time, in my opinion.

      The two most likely successful 3rd parties in America would be a centrist one and a theologically minded social-conservative one. Obviously we're talking about the centrist party, then, if we're referencing something viable. Now that McCain has won and solidified his position people would rather stick with him than go with a third party.

      (-2.75, -4.92) | This might be a misstatement. I'll decide later.

      by Addison on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:47:54 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I am not talking (0+ / 0-)

        I am not talking about 08, I m talking about the future. If Hillary wins, this party will be destroyed on a national level.

        •  Ah... (0+ / 0-)

          ...well, we'll see. 3rd parties are always unlikely. Remember that Perot wasn't really part of one, and left nothing behind.

          (-2.75, -4.92) | This might be a misstatement. I'll decide later.

          by Addison on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:57:12 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  If hillary (0+ / 0-)

            if hillary wins/steals the nomination, what do ou think happens on sites like this?  This is the future of the em party and I forsee this site focussing on local elections andbasically sitting out the presidential election.  That is a sign that nationally, this party is in deep shit.

            Obama has shown, the right person can raise the money now via internet.

            I think the 2 parties are dinosaurs. Picking the best of two bad choices is becoming tiring.

  •  I agree (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    peraspera, Greasy Grant, dark daze

    There's no question there's a large group of Obama voters who will "stay home" on election day if Hillary wins this thing by super delegate.  I'm one of them.  Whether it's against the rules or not is irrelevant.  She had her chance to win this legitimately without all this dirty politics.  Only Karl Rove could love the Clinton tactics this last month or so...

    Oh, and if you recall back to all the "Al Gore invented the internet" stuff from 2000, try to envision those same folks working with the Hillary footage from St. Paddy's day and the video from Bosnia.  With all her historical baggage she didn't need to remind everyone what incredible liars the Clintons can be when they find it necessary.

  •  Kos, you forgot the environmentalists (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bethcf4p, peraspera, Greasy Grant, Losty

    From Buffenbarger's mouth and out through his ass:

    "Give me a break! I've got news for all the latte-drinking, Prius- driving, Birkenstock-wearing, trust fund babies crowding in to hear him speak!..."

    When will the Clinton camp explain to the public (as well as their friend Al Gore) why driving a Prius is a bad thing?

  •  Any Rules made (0+ / 0-)

    to regulate states not following the rules anyway do not get changed.  

    "Sometimes I wish I could change my nickname" Me

    by givemhellHarryR on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:35:00 AM PDT

  •  why have super delegates if the pledge delegates (0+ / 0-)

    are supposed to dictate the winner! The super delegates are there for a it or not!

  •  PLEASE STOP with the Popular Vote talk (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jamfan, LNK

    There is no such thing for the Democratic nomination

  •  Clinton will endorse McCain (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Joe Beese

    if she continues with this I have to win even if I am such a looser attitude. Her argument is now reaching the borders of insanity. Ok, she already did but I mean officially endorse him.

  •  A thought, some thoughts..... (0+ / 0-)

    It would be wrong to conflate democracy with American elections and esp. with party rules.

    We don't have a direct democracy, for various reasons...some of which are excellent.....Unfortunately, big money and the two-party system corrupted the original founders' system as it was intended.

    Party rules. We vote for delegates. The superdelegates are 'wiser' and certainly more involved than most voters.......

    In theory, we the people could have voted for a fraud, for a candidate who cannot win in the GE, for someone who the party seniors know more about than we do........

    But, the big issue now is how to stop the bleeding and start blocking McCain a.s.a.p.?

    Best Diary of the Year?

    by LNK on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:37:46 AM PDT

  •  America is ready for a female president. (0+ / 0-)

    I just don't think Hillary is it.

    The smirk comes off in hell.

    by BA BarackUS on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:38:17 AM PDT

  •  Coup by super delegate would be outrage (0+ / 0-)

    I was uneasy about the ideas of superdelegates when I first learned about them. If they decide to make Hilary the candidate against the popular vote, I think that will be a worse scandal than anything that did or did not happen in Florida and Ohio.

  •  I Puerto Rico's change a part of this framing? (0+ / 0-)

    Today on NPR I heard Puerto Rico will switch from a (presumably Obama friendly) caucus to a (presumably Clinton friendly) primary.

    It sounded like "primaries are more important than caucuses" which is a meme the Clinton campaign and surrogates have been pushing. And the superdelegate talking up the change is Kenneth D. McClintock, superdelegate declared for Clinton.

    •  not about delegates (0+ / 0-)

      biggest change is that the number of voters will go up substantially, going toward the whole idea of "who won the popular vote?"

      If there is anything I have learned from Scooby Doo, it is that the only thing to fear is crooked real estate developers.

      by JakeC on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:16:07 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  • Die hard means: (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dark daze

    "a person who vigorously maintains or defends a seemingly hopeless position, outdated attitude, lost cause, or the like."

    I think rather ONLY HRC supporters can be called die hard.

    ~whatever we need is what is given

    by petercjack on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:39:27 AM PDT

  •  This is a joke (0+ / 0-)

    The whole process of nominating a Democratic Presidential Candidate has been a joke from the beginning.  Kos asserts that Super delegates voting to  get one of the 2 over the needed number of votes subverts the will of the people?

    How can we determine the will of the people?
    We can't get an accurate popular vote - how can you realistically count caucus goers?  Nobody really knows how many people voted.

    Then we have delegates representing the voters, and how they are apportioned.  The process is trickier than the tax laws.  How about 1 person 1 vote - novel idea.

    Except in Texas, where 1 person can have 2 votes.

    Then there is Iowa and NH - FLA and "the party" tells states when they can and can't vote..

    There has been a coup, the Howard Dean/Joe Trippi/Kos's of the world and the DNC have stolen the right to vote for our nominee away from the people.

    Follow the rules.  Add up the delegate votes, add up the super delegate votes, and let them all vote their will.  They fight it out until one gets the magic number.

    •  Would it be a joke (0+ / 0-)

      if Hillary were winning?

      Silly question huh?

      We have election rules that are silly too, but its the game we have till we change them.

      As for anyone threatening with the will of the people, well isn't that for the people to decide. Which I believe is what Kos is saying. Overturn this by manipulating the system will have that effect, not a fact, just a good guess.

      Hillary kept touting her experience, but not what she learned from it. Perhaps its because all that sniper fire made her forget.

      by KingGeorgetheTurd on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:50:43 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Your word choice is interesting? (0+ / 0-)

        Manipulating?  Since when is following the "flawed" rules manipulating?

        Was that in Obama's talking points for today?

        •  Well glad to see (0+ / 0-)

          you recognize your logic is flawed and only can point to the use of a single word. So yes manipulate is a fair word, but a voter manipulates the outcome of an election with his/her finger in the booth too.

          What matters is who is doing the manipulation. Voters or candidates? If the voters do it, no one can bitch and usually accepted by all. The other option can have dire consequences, which I believe is the whole point he is making.

          Hillary kept touting her experience, but not what she learned from it. Perhaps its because all that sniper fire made her forget.

          by KingGeorgetheTurd on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:01:41 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  If this coup happens, should Obama run as a (0+ / 0-)

    third party candidate?  I only throw it out as a question....

    As an Iraqi-American academic born and raised in New Orleans, this voter is not pleased.

    by naltikriti on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:40:23 AM PDT

  •  I think in general... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    ...coup implies illegality or extra-legality. At the least it implies the system isn't working as designed. Superdelegates were designed to have this power, even if it's stupid. There is some wiggle room in the definition of a "coup," but Armando has the same reaction I had yesterday, and for the same reasons, and so I think if the problem is merely a semantic one with the word "coup" there's no real reason to pretend that's an important word to hold on to.

    The basic point, from Talkleft to Dkos to TPM and beyond is that if Obama wins the pledged delegate count (and some people go further and say some count of popular votes) and the superdelegates overturn that they'll be up in arms. I think that's good enough.

    (-2.75, -4.92) | This might be a misstatement. I'll decide later.

    by Addison on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:41:10 AM PDT

  •  coup implies a violation of rules or normal order (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    and the superdelegates are part of the rules and normal order

    Sorry I have to run to the Senate floor to abolish torture.

    by bten on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:41:42 AM PDT

  •  Unfortunately, David Brooks has today's best line (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dark daze

    On Clinton:"The Audacity of Hopelessness."

    I can't stand Brooks, but a good line is a good line.

  •  Kos. Um. Jerome called you out (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Zain, LNK, Catesby

    for saying that a result that is,  in fact, actually contemplated by the rules, would be a "coup".  

    Hysterical hyperbole aside, he's got a point.  A coup is going outside the rules to grab power.  That's not the issues here.

    And don't for a second think that I'd be pleased with the SDs throwing this to Clinton; I would not.

    "Terror is nothing other than justice...; it is ... the general principle of democracy applied to our country's most urgent needs." M. Robespierre

    by Bartimaeus Blue on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:41:51 AM PDT

  •  The Whole World Is Watching. (0+ / 0-)

    August, 29, 1968.

    John McCain's biggest problem? When he opens his mouth, words come out.

    by kitebro on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:42:18 AM PDT

  •  Armando (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Should not be listened to when it comes to this campaign. I used to think that the people who complained about him were just whiners. I've come to believe I was wrong.

    His favorite tactic appears to be calling anybody who disagrees with him "dishonest" or a liar or something of that nature. He seems to be almost incapable of believing folks can disagree with him without being stupid or corrupt, and he even seems to enjoy using ALLCAPS to tell people about their stupidity or dishonesty.

    I haven't even mentioned his alleged "support" of Obama, which is, IMO, nothing more than a cover to allow him to do almost nothing but rip Obama to no end, while simultaneously ignoring much of Hillary's eggregious campaign tactics.

    And don't even start with Jeralyn, who has taken to posting the most ridiculous things to the front page. There was, of course, her post implying millions of people who support Obama are cultists. And just the other day, she posted some loony piece using the new Gov of New York's admission of cocaine use to attack Obama, apparently for not using the right words when he owned up to past cocaine use in his book.

    This type of stuff is now common on the front page of Talk Left. Meanwhile, these people are the ones who hyperventilated to no end about a few of kos' posts, which make up a relatively small percentage of the front page posts here.

    John McCain, 100 years in Iraq "fine with me"

    by taylormattd on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:42:21 AM PDT

  •  Go to Corrente for fun Hillary-camp resentment (0+ / 0-)

    They have a running series of "Why won't the dumb b!tch quit?" threads [their choice of words, not mine] that complain about Kos and his enabling of all those Obama supporters who want to deny Hillary her fair chance to finish behind in pledged delegates.

    "I'm Joe Beese and I approved this message."

    by Joe Beese on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:42:39 AM PDT

  •  Suggested Superdelegate early primary (0+ / 0-)

    Rachel Maddow says she likes this proposal.

    Best Diary of the Year?

    by LNK on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:43:09 AM PDT

  •  For crissakes (0+ / 0-)

    watch out for the snipers.

    This message has not been approved by the corporate media.

    by jre2k8 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:43:42 AM PDT

  •  Coup (5+ / 0-)

    A 10 year old can see parsing the word "coup" does not win your argument. Sheesh, grow up people. Markos is right in saying over throwing the will of the majority is a "coup." Just because it's within the rules of the DNC doesn't make it any less morally corrupt and tainted.

  •  Will Throwing A Tantrum Now Be The Campaign Norm? (0+ / 0-)

    Heaven help this nation's last stitch of sanity if this tantrum-2-win-at-all-cost brand of campaigning sets precedent for other candidates to use to weasel future elections down to the level of their inevitably failed campaign.

    Will there be lessons learned?

    Will our Party elite have learned by the end of this to at least detect and vet for themselves who may or may not belong on the stage among other worthy Party nominees BEFORE they let 'em even as much as get the greenlight for a go next time?

    Whoever's wise idea to say yes to this should be filling out their unemployment paperwork right about now.

  •  Super delegates are here to save us from ourselve (0+ / 0-)

    If Obama is allowed to take the nomination, which is a  tie if neither candidate can secure 2025 pledged delegates, then the Democrats will lose in November.  We will lose the Lunchpail voters who clock out of the work and march on down to church and cast their votes for Hillary Clinton, giving us PA and OH.  Those voters will easily go for the maverick if our nominee is Obama, who will get slaughtered with ads featuring Rev. Wright from here to eternity.  An Obama victory in the general election disappeared from all reasonable expectations the day those videos emerged.  I mean we all knew the guy was a nutcase, but god damn america was worse than mondale promising to raise taxes.  The super delegates are beltway insiders and can see when a candidacy is doomed.  FORTUNATELY for us, and the nation, the super delegates can (and will) pick the candidate more likely to win in the GE in the event of a tie.  When Reid says they are working on it, it means they are working on convincing the necessary super delegates to stand up for HRC sooner rather than later, and thereby quashing Obama's chances in post PA primaries, which are already slipping away (latest NC polls has Obama's lead evaporated.) The rules are in place for us to pick a candidate who can win, and they will pick HRC because she is our ticket to electoral glory and the downfall of the corrupt Bush adminstration.  

    Visit my new blog!

    by KarlRove72HourGenius on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:48:12 AM PDT

  •  Coup. Uncomfortable definition from dictionary (0+ / 0-)

    And I totally agree with those who say Superdelegates are part of normal Democratic Party rules, as is the exclusion of early elections in FL and MI.

    coup (k¡) noun
    plural coups (k¡z)

    1. A brilliantly executed stratagem; a masterstroke.
    1. A coup d'état.
    1. Among certain Native American peoples, a feat of bravery performed in battle, especially the touching of an enemy's body without causing injury.
    - idiom.
    count coup
    Among certain Native American peoples, to ceremoniously recount one's exploits in battle.

    [French, stroke, from Old French colp, from Late Latin colpus

    The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition copyright © 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from INSO Corporation. All rights reserved.

    Best Diary of the Year?

    by LNK on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:48:16 AM PDT

  •  It wont be just a civil war (0+ / 0-)

    I will leave the democratic party if Clinton creats a super delagate coup. Furthermore I will never vote democrate again.

    •  YOUR loss! (0+ / 0-)

      .ll see you in the Green Party?

      Obama or amabO, looking great whatever which way...

      by galliano on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:56:37 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Are you saying we need a Civil War? (0+ / 0-)


      Obama or amabO, looking great whatever which way...

      by galliano on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:57:20 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  So, if Obama is elected VP and then runs for pres (0+ / 0-)

      president in 2016 you won't vote for him because he's a Democrat?

      •  On principlle I will leave (0+ / 0-)

        Because this means the party Supers do not care about us Obama supporters or the nation. And I will not be in a party that trumps the voice of the people. I will leave if Clinton trumps us via promises to supers.

        •  If it is principle then leave today. (0+ / 0-)

          You are speaking emotion, not principle. If it were a matter of principle then you would leave the Democratic Party today because you oppose the principle of the superdelegates being able to swing the vote at the convention.

          But since you say it is okay for the superdelegates to swing to your candidate but not the other candidae then you are not concerned about the principle at all, only about your candidate winning.

          The rules allow the party insiders and old timers to have the swing votes in a closely contested nomination. That is the principle. If you don't accept tht principle then leave today. If you accept that principle then abide by it and its results.

          Some superdelegates declared their preferences far too early for my sense of responsibility. I think that all superdelegates should hold their fire until the primaries are over.  So far there is no strong indication from the majority of superdelegates who have not delcared that they will not be voting responsibly.  

        •  Running someone who they know will lose (0+ / 0-)

          is not caring about the party or nation. Running someone who can win is exactly what they are supposed to do within the established rules.

          The SD's choosing who they think is the most electable and who can govern the best is exactly what they were created to do. It is in the rules.

          If you don't like the rules then change them for next time or you can just leave the party and watch more men and women go off to die in senseless wars.

          •  I will leave the party (0+ / 0-)

            I am in no position to change the rules. If they nominate her I will not vote. And if more people die its on the rule makers heads who drove that party away.. SDs are an invention of corruption. It wrestles the power from the electorate.. its crap.. back to the days of torry etc.. its all Bullshit.. I am an American and should be able to vote positions and be heard.. not ignored.. so scew the SuperDelegates..and the Democratic party. I am not the onlyone that feels this way.

  •  Armando? Armando who? n/t (0+ / 0-)
  •  I am shocked! (0+ / 0-)

    Armando? Making up "the facts" of what others actually do and don't say so that he can argue with them?

    Wowee-wow-wow! What planet am I on?

    Who woulda thunk it?

  •  Drop out with dignity? (0+ / 0-)

    Is there any doubt that if Hillary dropped out gracefully, with dignity and Obama's campaign somehow suffered an epic collapse that we would give her the nomination?

    It's time to act like a Stateswoman not George Bush.

  •  Booman (0+ / 0-)

    Loved his essay - he really captured the craptardedness of Jerome's position.

    Canada - where a pack of smokes is ten bucks and a heart transplant is free.

    by dpc on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:53:28 AM PDT

  •  Jesus H. Christ (0+ / 0-)

    This isn't going to end well.

    Jeff Healey March 25 1966 - March 2 2008: Rest in Peace and say hi to Stevie Ray Vaughn for me

    by LeftHandedMan on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:55:13 AM PDT

    •  "I can already smell the burning flesh" (0+ / 0-)

      Obama or amabO, looking great whatever which way...

      by galliano on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:00:43 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The most telling quote in the linked article (0+ / 0-)

      "She can win this race, and we have got to win," he told a crowd packed into the West Side Democratic Club.

      Tells me that in their mind H. Clinton getting the nomination trumps all.  

      By any means necessary.  

    •  No it isn't (0+ / 0-)

      no matter what outcome, it will be have consequence. But since I see a landslide victory for Obama under normal conditions and a tight race for Hillary under the same, an Obama nomination will be a tight race this Nov due to this friction.

      So we either have Obama win a tight election or Hillary in a massive defeat if this continues. But the damage is mounting every day that passes.

      Hillary kept touting her experience, but not what she learned from it. Perhaps its because all that sniper fire made her forget.

      by KingGeorgetheTurd on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:07:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  have always wondered (0+ / 0-)

    why someone so insulting to and dismissive of those who disagree with him saw fit to call himself "big tent democrat"...

    Do we have any figures on how scared they are?

    by itsbenj on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:55:24 AM PDT

  •  It has gotten so bad...I can only read blogs now. (0+ / 0-)

    On the party split between Clinton and Obama.  I am so over cable news.  I will listen and read all of you, but I have made it STOP on my television and now only watch movies at night.

  •  Forget Clintons, if Obama d/n win North Carolina (0+ / 0-)

    If Obama does not win North Carolina, then there is irreversible damage from the Wright scandal.  Stay tuned, it's a ways off yet.  It is a fair gauge of the Wright affect, however.  

    If you're white-teflon
    If you're non-white-everything sticks.

  •  Obama couldn't get elected as a Dog Catcher now (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    If the SD's vote for Hillary it will be because its clear that Obama has no chance of winning in November.

    If the SD's vote for Obama it will only be because they made the determination that its better to lose the election in November than to anger the black community.

    I think that's a big mistake and ultimately hurts the AA community much more. They are adults and understand that we must win. Obama can be in the whitehouse for 16 years. There is nothing wrong with him getting a little more seasoning as VP.

    But he cannot win at the top of the ticket. There is no excuse for losing 3 presidential races in a row. NONE. Please Democrats, be adults this year and play to win! Otherwise there will not be anything for anyone to be hopeful about.

    •  I love this (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jre2k8, Slim Tyranny, Joe Beese

      The whole Wright thing blows over, and yet Clintonistas are still clinging to it like the last life raft off of the Titanic.  

      I guess if you want to avoid the math, the growing chorus against Clinton, and Thirty Seconds Over Tuzla, you'll cling to anything...

      •  Wright blew over? Not a chance (0+ / 0-)

        Last I checked those videos were on every significant cable news show from here to Timbuktu.  That scandal is just picking up steam, so it's team for the party to bail on Obama now before it itself gets painted as a radical group.  Just as Obama needed to denounce Wright's comments, so does the party leadership need to break away from OBama when he refuses to do so.  Time to cut off a finger to save the hand.  

        Visit my new blog!

        by KarlRove72HourGenius on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:08:57 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Obama DID denounce Wright's comments (0+ / 0-)

          Stop lying.

          When you lie, your mother is ashamed of you.

          Think of your mother!!!

          "I will not rest until every year families gather to spend December 25th together at Osama's homo-abortion-pot-and-commie-jizzporium." - Jon Stewart

          by Slim Tyranny on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:13:51 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Are we watching the same shows? (0+ / 0-)

          Last I checked, Wright was old news and the cable news guys were more interested in Hillary's misadventures in Tuzla.  Moreover, Obama's roughly even by both Gallup and Rasmussen's polling, he's within 10% in Rasmussen's latest on PA, and he's up by 21% in PPP's latest from NC.  

          Dead issue is dead.

      •  You are not paying attention. The Wright thing (0+ / 0-)

        will not go away this year. The GOP can play the Wright tapes anytime they need to lower Obama's numbers.

        He already loses to McCain by 9 points. He should be up by 10, but he's down by 9. He is still a relatively new candidate and he already has negatives of about 50%.

        Obama's numbers in the state polls are worse. McCain is beating him in blue states. Hillary is doing significantly better than Obama vs. McCain. You can check it out at:

        To many of the Independents and open-minded Republicans, the Rev Wright controversy MATTERS. Maybe it shouldn't, but it does.

        I don't care if we run Obama, Clinton or Gore, we need to win. Obama cannot win. He will not be president this time. He may be VP but he can't win the presidency.

        •  Gallup says otherwise (0+ / 0-)

          O47 C 45

          M45 O44
          M46 C45

          •  Even Kos will tell you that Gallup is worthless (0+ / 0-)

            All the other polls including exit polls shows Obama losing support of Independents, Democrats and open-minded Republicans.

            The fact is that the tapes exist and can be used any time and they work. Obama has ZERO chance of becoming president this year. He needs to be VP first. If he can't handle that then he and Clinton can sit back and watch as history passes them by.

            •  Exit polls? (0+ / 0-)

              The Wright brouhaha exploded last week.  There haven't been any elections since then.

              But keep on' with your line of argument.  Between shouting 'WRIGHT' at the top of your lungs and arguing that Obama should get on the back of the bus... well... that really is mighty white of you.

              •  The exit polls from Ohio and Texas (0+ / 0-)

                Why are they relevant? Because they already showed an erosion of support for Obama among working-class whites, Independents and Republicans.

                That erosion has increased since the Wright controversy. It is NOT going away this year. Obama is TOAST!!!

                He can still be VP, he will just have to convince his old supporters to come back to the party. If he can, he can be president in2016, it he can't then he and Clinton will have to watch history pass them by.

        •  I see: Rasmussen counts this week (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Joe Beese

          Meanwhile, Gallup has him only down by one.  Then again, Rasmussen has Hillary down by five to McCain, so I guess we're pretty much ####ed, eh?

          While I'm here, I'll see your Wright, and raise you a Norman Tsu, Marc Rich, Thirty Seconds over Tuzla, Lincoln Bedroom, and eleventy billion other things that the GOP can drag up against Hillary.  Welcome to modern day politics: Throwing #### and seeing what sticks is what the GOP does.  If you think sixteen years of taking the VRWC's crap is going to immunize Hillary, I've got a bridge over the Cuyahoga to sell you.

          •  Let's be clear, Rasmusen has Obama down by 9 poin (0+ / 0-)

            points and Hillary down by 5. She also does much better than Obama against McCain in PA, MI, FL and New Jersey.

            Obama is creamed by McCain in MINESOTA, the blueist of states.

            Hillary has already been discounted for all the stories, Obama has not. She is a known quantity and he's relatively new. Yet, his negatives are around 50% ALREADY.

            Bottom line: if Obama wants to be president he will have to be VP first. If he can't handle that then neither he or Hillary will be president.

            The GOP already has all they need against Obama. They have no fear of him any more. Hillary hasn't touched the Rev Wright controversy. I think she should have a long time ago. But she decided not to. All they need to do is play the tapes and Obama is dead in the water. He is unelectable at this point. Watch as his numbers continue to drop.

            •  As clear as mud. (0+ / 0-)

              You cherry pick polls, claim Minnesota - home of Norm Coleman - as the 'blueist' of states, and claim that Obama has negatives around 50% without any links or support.

              If you're looking to troll, congratulations.  If you're looking to bolster your case, you're failing miserably.

              •  Check out their voting record in presidential (0+ / 0-)

                elections and they qualify as very blue. Norm Coleman used to be a Democrat. He is a moderate Republican and might get beat by the great Al Frankin.

                Obama is gettint trounced by McCain there. I don't cherry pick anything.

                Even before the Rev Wright controversy, exit polls in Ohio and Texas showed Obama losing support among working-class whites, Independents and Republicans. Now it has gotten worse.

                Obama does terrible in PA, WV, NJ, WA. This is bad. The SD's know he's toast but don't want to upset AA's. I say do the right thing for AA's and tell them the truth. Vote in Obama as VP this time and then he can be president. If he's the nominee this time the Democrats lose and Obama will NEVER be president.

                Keep watching the polls and see if you can spin yourself into believing that up is down and down is up.

    •  Does being so wrong sting? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Take a look at the latest NC poll.

      Obama 55%, Clinton 34%, and that is a poll that polled 57% women and 61% of people older than 45.

      If North Carolina was electing State Commissioner of Dog Catching, Clinton would finish a distant second.

      Stop pretending that Obama is dead in the water, stop lying about his performance in MOST states and with MORE voters.

      Seriously, does the wrong burn?  Does it itch?

      "I will not rest until every year families gather to spend December 25th together at Osama's homo-abortion-pot-and-commie-jizzporium." - Jon Stewart

      by Slim Tyranny on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:12:20 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Obama out spent Clinton in Texas 4-1 and outspent (0+ / 0-)

        her in Ohio 3-1. He lost both, Ohio badly. He is losing big in PA and WV even though he has a lot more money and most voteres assume that he is the nominee. He will lose the majority of the remaining contests as well.

        He is getting beat by McCain in blue states already. McCain is killing him in swing states. Let's see how Obama does in NC. He's been way up there for 2 months but his numbers have been falling everywhere.

        McCain currently beats him nationally by 9 points. Hillary does much better than Obama now. It will only keep getting worse for Obama.

        The party may decide to sacrafice the election and make Obama the nominee. They would only do that because they are afraid of losing the AA vote. I think that's a big mistake as I think the AA community is made up of intelligent ADULTS who understand politics. We can win with Clinton/Obama. But Obama at the top of the ticket is a sure loser.

        What's wrong with having Obama in the whitehouse for 16 years, 8 as VP and 8 as president? Absolutely nothing.

        •  Wrong (0+ / 0-)

          Obama won the Texas caucus and came away with more pledged delegates in Texas.

          Furthermore, his numbers in NC are fine and dandy --- right now polled at 55 to 34 against HRC.

          The McCain polling information is worthless until there is a clear nominee; either Obama or HRC (whoever wins the nomination, though it's clearly going to be Obama) will dramatically improve once things have crystallized.

          But hey, your fantasy math and facts make you happy, so enjoy.

          "I will not rest until every year families gather to spend December 25th together at Osama's homo-abortion-pot-and-commie-jizzporium." - Jon Stewart

          by Slim Tyranny on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:38:37 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  there will not be any caucuses in the general (0+ / 0-)

            election. Obama out spent Hillary 4-1 there and lost the popular vote. He out spent Hillary in Ohio by 3-1 and lost badly. He is losing badly in PA, a huge state that is very important.

            Obama has lost the support of Independents and open-minded Republicans. They will not go back to him. He is finished as a serious candidate for president. The SD's know this.

            The only person who can save Obama is Clinton. If she beats him and puts him on the ticket. Then he can be president. Otherwise he's completely finished.

    •  Well. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Joe Beese

      Looks like the strike is over.

      I hear the weather in Tuzla is wonderful this time of year.  Perhaps you should check it out.  No corkscrew landings or snipers these days.

      This message has not been approved by the corporate media.

      by jre2k8 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:26:12 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  You all make my head hurt. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    arktan, mmorang

    Can we just stick with the rules?

    This is how it works. 48 states and other regions have primaries or caucuses with elected "pledged" delegates. There are some 800ish superdelegates who are elected officials with the ability to pick whoever the heck they vote for at the convention. Michigan and Florida's elected delegates will not count at the convention, by rules agreed upon at the start.

    At the end, whoever has 2,025 or greater pledged delegates + super delegates wins.

    Candidates may persuade superdelegates to vote for them.

    How hard is that?

    Taking Daily Kos back, one anti-McCain diary at a time.

    by bhagamu on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:05:06 AM PDT

  •  Talk about not ending well.. (0+ / 0-)

    Clinton is at it again..

    "He would not have been my pastor," Clinton said. "You don't choose your family, but you choose what church you want to attend."

    "You know, I spoke out against Don Imus (who was fired from his radio and television shows after making racially insensitive remarks), saying that hate speech was unacceptable in any setting, and I believe that," Clinton said. "I just think you have to speak out against that. You certainly have to do that, if not explicitly, then implicitly by getting up and moving."

    •  Not ending well.....for Obama (0+ / 0-)

      I pretty much agree with everything she said.  Who knew that Obama's "reject and denounce" moment in that last debate would have such poignance.  He needed to reject and denounce his own radical, hateful pastor and he did not do that.  He tried to compare Wright to a uncle at a family reunion who has too much punch.  If I had an uncle who talked like that you damn well better believe I'd never call him again.  

      Visit my new blog!

      by KarlRove72HourGenius on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:13:34 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  When did the world get so weird (0+ / 0-)

      that I'm reading and quoting Andrew Sullivan..

      "I'm not a Democrat and I know how vile the Clintons are. But this really is a new low. I think it is becoming a national imperative to defeat the Clintons."

  •  Are the Repubs pulling a "Lieberman" on Obama? (0+ / 0-)

    Do you folks think it is possible that Repubs have changed parties to vote in Obama, then count on the racist vote to defeat him in Nov.?  Also, I'm sure the Repubs could have sent $$ to his campaign.
    I'm sorry if you've alread debated this.  Thanks.

  •  Michigan + Florida (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Joe Beese

    Hillary's contention that the delegates from FL and MI ought to be seated on the basis of those flawed primaries (to her obvious benefit)is a self-serving load of horseshit.

    She has been trying to make the case that it would be a terrible thing if the voters in those two states were disenfranchised.  First, does anyone believe that she would be out there righteously advocating for the seating of those delegates if Obama had come out ahead in those two bogus primaries?

    Second, if she is so deeply concerned about disenfranchisement, then where is her concern for all of the Democrats in Michigan who did not cast a vote in their state's primary because they were informed beforehand by the DNC that the election was meaningless and their delegates would not be seated?

    Early on in this race I thought we had two strong candidates, and I was happy to let the primary process play itself out and may the best candidate win.  But when Hillary tried to steal the delegates from MI and FL my respect for her went out the window. She spent a couple of months whining about the delegate situation in those two states, and now it looks like the clock has run out and she won't get a do-over.  Now that the DNC has made it clear that she isn't going to get away with the theft of those delegates, she is starting to push for full and fair primaries.  If she had taken the high road and lobbied for full and fair primaries in the first place, she would've had a good case.  At every stage in this contest she and her campaign team have made the wrong choice, both ethically and tactically.

  •  she has a memory of being under a sniper attack (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    when there wasn't one.

    go ahead vote for her.

  •  "Coup by Superdelegate" (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    The complete freedom of superdelegates is a given.

    What the superdelegates will do, and should do, is to vote for the candidate who will win.  They should do that AGAINST the will of the voters if necessary.  (I'm an Obama supporter by the way.)

    The only obligation I see that the superdelegates have is to the success of their party.   I don't see how they have an obligation to ratify the voters' views, other than with regard to the impact of failure to ratify on electoral success in November.

    Reason 1 to Ratify Voters' Decision (in this case)

    Victory is the essence, so supers should support the candidate most likely in polls to defeat McCain.  Voting for the candidate who will win means voting for Obama over Hillary.  Hillary cannot defeat McCain... Obama can.

    Reason 2 to Ratify Voters' Decision (in all cases)

    Victory is of the essence, and having the voters on board is part of victory.  They should ratify the voters' views because failure to do so will lead to electoral failure, as voters are turned off.  The REASON they should ratify the voters' decisions is not because they have an obligation to vote the same way voters did, or the same way the pledged delegate count worked out, but because of the electoral consequence of voters feeling thwarted by the party elite.  


    The rule that should guide the superdelegates is "do whatever is most likely to put a Democrat in the White House."  And do you honestly believe that ANYTHING else will govern their decision?

    This explains why everything the Clintons do will be designed to shape the perception of a few hundred super delegates, who as elected officials and party hacks see the world very differently from the average voter.

    The only rule is the rule of power.   Because the Democratic party is semi-democratic, part of power involves listening to the electorate.  But because it is an oligarchy (represented by the unfettered decision power of the super delegates) it is also free to pursue paths to power that ignore the public.

    Self-interest, above all, seem to dictate that the super-delegates swing to Obama, but the rules certainly give them the freedom to vote against their apparent interests.

  •  The rules, the whole rules, nothing but the rules (0+ / 0-)

    Kos: "The rules state that this is a delegate race, with voters directly electing pledged delegates."

    No, the rules state that this is a delegate race, with voters directly electing some of the delegates (the "pledged" delegates), and other delegates (the "superdelegates") selected by others means. If you're going to state the rules, you need to state the whole rules.

    Eli Stephens
    Left I on the News

    Waiting for the deadlocked Democratic convention to turn to...Kucinich!

    by elishastephens on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:16:43 AM PDT

  •  Harry Reid Knows Something We Don't? (0+ / 0-)
  •  'Coup' (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Seems fairly inflammatory a word for someone who has "nowhere said it would violate the rules."

    •  'Coup' a Logical, if Dramatic, Description (0+ / 0-)

      Describing the overturning of the popular vote as a "coup within the rules" is fairly apropos.  After all, a 'coup' is (roughly) the taking of power by hostile means.  In the political sense, it's often used to describe a takeover that violates the democratic will (a military coup against the legally elected government, for example).

      In this case, the Democratic Party leadership would take power/leadership from the democratically chosen candidate.

      Dramatic, yes --- but a logical and apropos description of what would happen if the superdelegates LEGALLY (yes, we get that it's legal) overturned the popular vote and pledged delegate count.

      "I will not rest until every year families gather to spend December 25th together at Osama's homo-abortion-pot-and-commie-jizzporium." - Jon Stewart

      by Slim Tyranny on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:45:57 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  It's not hard for Clinton to win the popular vote (0+ / 0-)

    kos said:

    it would essentially require Obama to quit the race to lose the popular vote count

    I really can't understand why this meme is so persistent.

    "Winning the popular vote" is not a cut and dried matter of fact, as you have to decide exactly what to include.  It is only useful insofar as it can influence superdelegates.  It is arguable that at least the FL primary vote should be considered as part of the popular vote, as both candidates were on the ballot there.    If you do that, Obama is now ahead by 408,000 votes, and 50,000 to 100,000 or so more than that if you impute votes for the four caucus states that didn't report the popular vote count.

    If Chris Bowers is right and Clinton picks up a net 36 pledged delegate advantage in the remaining primaries, that equates to Clinton winning something like a 425,000 additional net vote advantage, plus or minus enough to make it very close and too hard (at least for me) to predict who wins.

    It all depends what you count, but if you count FL, its going to be very close in the popular vote.

    I'm for Obama but I'm also in the reality based community.

    It's the STUPIDITY, stupid!

    by arktan on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:23:47 AM PDT

  •  Armando and Jerome have "issues" (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    No one is claiming that the Super Delegates can not vote however they please so stop claiming that Kos and others are saying this. It really makes Armando/Jerome look like Republicans when they lie like this. It's just embarrassing.

    To say that it would be "political suicide" or "coup by super-delegate" doesn't mean that we don't understand and accept the rules. It simply means that this would be a disastrous move. That's not very complicated, boys.

    •  Damn you and your logic ;) (0+ / 0-)

      "I will not rest until every year families gather to spend December 25th together at Osama's homo-abortion-pot-and-commie-jizzporium." - Jon Stewart

      by Slim Tyranny on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:40:07 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  What a disingenuous thing to say (0+ / 0-)

      You believe in the rules but if they are followed and your man, who is certain to lose in the general, is not the nominee then we will have civil war?

      Half of the Democratic party will leave the party and not vote for Obama as VP if that is the ticket because they think a few more years of seasoning would be a bad thing?

      If you're concerned about the will of the people then do a revote in Florida and Michigan or count the votes already made. One or the other. Also, don't county the caucuses because they don't accurately reflect the will of the people (Hillary received more popular votes in Neveda and ended up with less delegates than Obama).

      If Obama supporters want to leave the party because SD's choose Clinton as the best candidate to field against McCain, then so be it. There is no excuse whatsoever for running a candidate that you know will lose.

      Obama is still relatively new and he already has negaives about 50%. He should be beating McCain by 10% points but is losing by 9% points. You can forget about the Independent vote or open-minded Republican vote. He is finished.

      Americans will only support Obama for president AFTER he's V.P. Obama and Hillary can help each other or they can both watch history pass them by.

      Clinon/Obama 2008

      •  you're living on another planet (0+ / 0-)

        (1) Armando says he himself will be "up in arms" if any candidate uses the supers to override an elected delegate majority and popular vote majority.

        (2) You say Obama would be certain to lose the general election. Well, the voters obviously disagree with you.

        (3) You say we shouldn't count the caucuses. That has to be the stupidest thing I have ever heard...just flat out moronic.

        (4) Are you suggesting that Obama has higher negatives than Hillary? And I thought only the republicans make shit up.

        You argue like a republican. You get your facts completely wrong and misrepresent other's opinions.

  •  You are a good friend Kos, (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jre2k8, pileta

    but Jerome is being willfully stupid. Something has happened to him this election cycle.  I won't put into words what I think it is because mere speculation on my part is not fair to him, but he is certainly being unsually pig-headed, divisive and down-right irrational with respect to Obama. Anybody who has read him before this election cycle can see it. Its a shame really.

  •  Since when is Josh Marshall (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    a die-hard Obama supporter?

    He's one of the most level-headed, even commentators around.

    Anyone who doesn't buy into Hillary's fantasy world is a die-hard Obama supporter now?

    Change You Can Xerox: Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton

    by Oothoon on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:27:15 AM PDT

    •  they say that because ... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Josh Marshall has published a lot of analysis, from both others and from his own work, showing conclusively that Hillary Clinton cannot win according to the rules, and therefore a campaign that continues to attack Obama is not helpful to the Democrats, to say the least.

      Anyone who faces reality on this point is obviously a die-hard Obama supporter, it seems; after all (apologies to Mr. Colbert) reality has a well-known Barack Obama bias.

  •  Texas, Ohio (0+ / 0-)

    I think that the most important moment in this campaign occurred on March 4, the day of the TX/OH/VT/RI primaries.  Remember how for weeks leading up to that date we were being told by Bill Clinton and every pundit in the business that Hillary was up against the last of her 'firewall' states, and that she absolutely needed crushing, 20-point blowout wins to keep her campaign alive?

    That was the narrative.

    Look what happened on that evening--

    Obama came away +9 in Texas delegates, Hillary went + 7 in Ohio, and VT and RI were basically a wash with each candidate winning easy victories.  But HRC managed popular vote wins in TX and OH, and by some magic this was transormed by the media into a "huge night" for Hillary.

    Yet hardly anyone raised their hand to point out that she had barely survived the night, much less gained any ground on Obama.  And the following day, California certified its primary, which yielded 4 more delegates for Obama, and then 3 more superdelegates came out for him.  Thus, Obama widened his lead on Mar. 4-5, yet somehow the whole world bought into the spin that Hillary was back in the game and competitive again.  The whole thing was an amazing example of smoke + mirrors, and it completely reversed the dynamic in the race and encouraged the Clinton campaign to hang around and keep fighting.  And remember, all of this AFTER we were told that she needed those big, 20-point wins.


  •  As a young person and a student, I can safely say (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    that if the super delegates "steal" the election from Senator Obama, many of my peers, that bothered to vote in the primary because they were excited about their candidate, will not be there in November.

    I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying what will happen. If Sen. Obama is ahead in pledged delegates and the popular vote and he isn't the nominee, then the amount of people who were finally brought to believe that their individual vote counts, will be proven that no, it never did.

    All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

    by anna789 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:35:01 AM PDT

  •  The rule that is being "broken".. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Nancy in LA

    .. is this one.

    The rules state that this is a delegate race, with voters directly electing pledged delegates at (mostly) the congressional district level.

    The entire reason for the FL and Michigan revote push has very little to do with delegates.  Hillary won't magically close the gap even with a landslide in Florida, because she won't get a landslide in MI and may even lose some.

    What it does have to do with is the popular vote totals.  Florida, in particular would have netted Hillary a substantial gain in the popular vote metric where she is now running behind by 600k or so.  The "rule" that's being broken, therefore, is not that "the pledged delegates decide the race" - that's an oversimplification, watered down and made bland.  Instead, the Clinton campaign is trying to imply that winning the popular vote makes her more electable and thus the supers should overturn, while blithely ignoring who has the actual momentum and more importantly, the perception.

    The rule being broken is very simple: The (super) delegates should act in the best interests of the party.  And damaging the party is not in it's best interests.  That is the elephant in the living room.

    It's not rules.  It's how do we get out of this mess without blowing our best shot in a decade?  And with all due respect to Clinton, who is a solid candidate and probably would have walked to the nomination any other time, she's blown her chance and now needs to realise what she's doing is needlessly destructive.

    Fortunately (?) with FL and MI revotes off the table, Hillary loses a big chance at winning the popular vote and thus having an argument for turning the tables at convention.  Don't get me wrong, i'm all for people voting (even though they broke the rules) but things are what they are and the states couldn't get their act together.

    The bigger deal is, we are actually playing into the framing with this back and forth.  The popular vote is not the yardstick here.  The delegate count is not even necessarily what's best, that's why superdelegates exist, right?  What's best is, well, what's best for the party.  But by being pushed into framing in terms of "the rules", we're further playing into their point of view, in that we're being forced to retreat from an emotional argument to a logical one.

    We all know who the frontrunner is.  We all know what kind of damage will be done if he doesn't become the nominee - massive damage to the party, massive damage to turnout and downticket races, and possibly four more years of George W. Bush in every aspect but stupidity.  McCain will be both wrong AND ruthlessly effective instead of a bumbling idiot.  We need to state the horrible alternative, unequivocally, every single time this argument comes up.

    We may have to grit our teeth and pull the lever, but by god, it's a damn sight better than four more years of this.  When the choices are what they are I consider it fantastic anybody is supporting Clinton - not on the merits, because you'd have to be an idiot not to see that Clinton has some, but simply on account of the damage that is being done RIGHT NOW and the damage that is sure to come if she somehow pulls off the near-impossible.

    This has, to me, ceased to be about anything except who are we more likely to win this thing with.  And staying in the race, propping up the Republican nominee and advocating for ditching the best GOTV operation, 50-state strategy and the highest turnout in a long time doesn't seem to be the winning call.

    The superdelegates should state, flat out, that they draw the line at damaging the party - that this race needs to come to an end, and anyone who doesn't see why baffles me.  I think I've had more than enough of this ridiculous "vetting".

    •  Running someone they know will lose is not in the (0+ / 0-)

      interest of the party.

      If the SD's vote for Obama they have made the determination that its better to lose in November then to anger the AA community.

      I believe that the AA community is politically pragmatic and that they would rather have improved schools, help with jobs and the home mortgage crisis then to have a phony feel good convention and then lose everything, including hope in November.

      A party that is serious about winning and governing needs to field its best candidate and play to win. The Super Delegates only get 795 votes. They couldn't give the nomination to a candidate who didn't already have wide support.

      The AA community could easily get behind a Clinton/Obama ticket. I know this to be the case. There is nothing wrong with giving Obama a little more seasoning. They he will be a great president in 2016.

      Clinton/Obama 2008

      •  Why do you believe Obama will lose the General? (0+ / 0-)

        I'd like to hear your reasoning, if you don't mind.  You state the impending loss as fact, but with no supporting reasoning.

        I'm curious as to why you think Clinton should top or even be present on the ticket when she has offered tactit verbal support to McCain in what will likely be many of his presidential selling points?

        •  I hate to tell you, its over for him (0+ / 0-)

          look at the polls and realize that he's still a relatively new candidate to many people. Yet, he already has negatives around 50%. Check out for a summary of polls and match-ups.

          Independents and open-minded Republicans will not support Obama anymore. Not at the top of the ticket. I think he could be president some day, but it won't be easy. He first needs to get elected V.P. If he doesn't want that then he and Clinton can watch as history passes them by.

          Obama currently loses to McCain by 9 points. He is doing terribly in state races with McCain, much worse than Hillary and it will only get worse. The Republicans can play the tape of Rev Wright any time they want to take Obama's numbers down 10-15 points, and they can do it at a time of their choosing.

          Reality is reality. I could make up hundreds of excuses and trash Hillary. But the hard truth is that Obama can't win. No way, no how.

          Are we a serious party that cares about winning and governing? I think the AA commintity is made up of mature and pragmatic adults who want the truth and care more about improving schools, healthcare, jobs and the home mortgage crises then they do about feeling good on one night only to lose everything, including hope in November.

          So, I say, help out the AA community and the country and support Clinton/Obama. Having Obama in the whitehouse for 16 years is a good thing.

          •  Sorry but polls are not convincing at this date. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Joe Beese

            References to polling by eight campaign about who will be the better candidate against McCain are just meaningless at this date.

            In politics a campaign always refers to polls they like and ignore polls they don't like. When the polls said Clinton would lose to McCain the Clinton people ignored them and now they want to turn them into gospel.

            Same but vice versa with the Obama campaign.

            None of those polls is relevant at this time.

            •  This is the best time for Obama and polls (0+ / 0-)

              while he's still relatively new. I told everyone a few weeks ago to wait, Obama's numbers will fall because his stock hasn't been discounted yet. It still hasn't been fully discounted yet.

              His situation will not get better, it will get worse. He will not win back Independents and open-minded Republicans.

              The Wright tapes will be played again down the road along with other clips of Obama, his wife and the Rev. It will continue to be very effective. It's not going away this year.

        •  re: why ... (0+ / 0-)

          He will be portrayed as an anti-american bigot.  

  •  I'm beginning to fear that (0+ / 0-)

    whoever is the nominee, we're going to be in for a long period of "Gotcha!" as those who support the candidate not chosen will simply bide their time and jump out when the nominee makes a mistake, big or small. And it's going to go on for four years if the Democrats do win in November -- meaning we're going to end up with a President who won't take the bold moves necessary out of fear of screwing up and giving his/her opponents (both within and without the Democratic Party) more fuel for their fires.

    You're only as popular as the last diary/comment you posted. -- Zachpunk

    by Cali Scribe on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:39:22 AM PDT

  •  Bah... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    ...Kos, you're just wrong.  A "coup" would be if someone broke the rules somehow.

    If the superdelegates decide to vote en masse for Clinton and she wins, even though Obama has more of the regular delegates, it's not a "coup".

    It would be stupid.  It would represent the superdelegates going against the will of the people.  It would be a crass power play.

    But it's not a "coup".  The word "coup" has an implication of someone somehow going outside of the rules, and the superdelegates are within the rules to give the nomination to Clinton.

    We'd all be furious, but it would be within the rules, and I think that's what Big Tent Democrat is saying.

    You guys are arguing over semantics.  Please stop.

    •  A "coup" is not a "coup d'etat". both win a coup (0+ / 0-)

      someone posted the definition of coup above.

      A coup is a good thing. It means scoring a point.

      A coup d'etat is not a good thing for the state because it means scoring the point against the state, but it is a good thing for the rebels who score the coup against the state.

      A vote for Obama by the superdelegates is a "coup" as much as a vote for Clinton by the superdelegates, since the superdelegates will be the swing votes and the candidate who wins enough swing voting superdelegates will be the candidate who scores the coup.

  •  A few questions: (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Kos says: Well, given that Clinton cannot win the pledged delegate count.... But Obama cannot win the pledged delegate count either, can he?  (A "win" requiring 2025 delegate votes.)  No candidate can "win" without the Super Delegates, right?

    Kos writes:  The rules state that Michigan and Florida don't count.  Do "the rules" actually state or require this?  Or, was this how the DNC decided to enforce the rules governing primary dates — a decision that can be revisited and overturned?

    Kos posits: Still, if the supers overturn the popular will by siding with Clinton, they will spur civil war... because they will have subverted the will of the party electorate.  By "popular will" and "will of the party electorate" do you mean the majority vote nationwide?  Or the majority vote per state?  Per county?  Per precinct?  Does a Super Delegate "overturn the popular will" by siding with the candidate who won the popular vote in the state the SD represents?  Or does the SD "subvert the will of the party electorate" by voting his/her own judgment rather than for the candidate selected by the SD’s state (e.g., Kennedy, Kerry, Richardson)?

  •  Counting Florida? (0+ / 0-)


    Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't the voters and the candidates in Michigan and Florida told beforehand that their delegates would not be seated, and thus those elections would be meaningless?

    If I've got my facts upside-down, please let me know.  But if indeed the voters were told that their votes wouldn't count, then there is no way that a court would uphold their legitimacy.

    How would we teach that story to kids in future civics classes?  I can just see it:

    "Way back in 2008, the Democratic Party told the people in Florida that their votes in the primary election would not count.  But after one of the candidates whined and grumbled about it a whole lot, the Party leaders said, "Whoops, never mind-- we're going to count those votes after all."

    My question is--  Why does anyone buy into the Clinton spin that the delegates from those states should count?  I've heard all the arguments about fairness and disenfranchisement, but none of them trump the fact that you can't issue a clear-cut ruling and then just reverse it after the fact.  It would undercut the credibility of the DNC, and then we would never know when a ruling is for real and when it isn't.  The situation with Florida is an unfortunate mess that should never have happened, but the only fair resolution I can see is to seat the delegates from those states 50-50. That way their votes will not be determinative of the outcome, but at least their delegates can attend the convention.  Any solution that would give an advantage to one candidate or the other would be disastrous for the Party.

    •  Re: counting ... (0+ / 0-)

      Right on.  I cannot see any way that those michiganders and floridians should have any say at all in who gets nominated.  The state pols should have the say on whose votes get counted.  That's the american way.  It is the way of the party and the smoke filled rooms.

      Can we work it out so that anyone who did vote in those primaries are disbarred from voting in November?

    •  If we care about the will of the people then (0+ / 0-)

      either count the vote already taken place or have a revote. But you cannot leave out two of the biggest states in the union and pretend that the result reflects the will of the people.

      The people of Michigan and Florida did not violate any rules. You cannot disenfranchise their vote to punish the party leaders.

      Does anyone care that Obama can't win? I'm supporting Hillary but I'll vote for Obama, Gore, or whoever the eventual nominee is, but we have to win.

      The GOP can lower Obama's numbers any time they choose by playing the Rev Wright tapes. Maybe it shouldn't matter, but it does matter to Independents and open-minded Republicans. They will not support Obama any more. He can be VP and then president. If he's not interested in that then he and Hillary can watch history pass them both by.

      •  The GOP doesn't waste money that way. (0+ / 0-)

        The GOP will only have to play their videos, produced and adapted for maximum revulsion, around the clock, in the last 48 hours before election day.

        HR 676 or California's SB-840 - the only health reform proposals worth my vote.

        by kck on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:08:15 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  The popular vote is not the delegate count (0+ / 0-)

      Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't the voters and the candidates in Michigan and Florida told beforehand that their delegates would not be seated, and thus those elections would be meaningless?

      You're right.  For the purpose of counting pledged delegates, the rules are clear.  MI & FL won't (or at least shouldn't) count.

      However, for the purposes of candidates trying to convince superdelegates how they should vote, they can make any arguments they want, and use facts that are true even if they're outside the official rules for delegate counting.

      All I'm saying is that it seems pretty reasonable to me to think of the FL vote as a somewhat reasonable representation of the opinions of Florida Dems, for the purpose of counting the popular vote (not the delegate count).   I'm just saying this is arguable, and therefore some will be arguing it.  I'm not insisting it be counted, just saying it's not completely idiotic to do so.

      The MI vote is another matter entirely, since one of the contenders wasn't on the ballot.  I can't see any reasonable way to consider that vote as a truthful mirror of MI voters.

      It's the STUPIDITY, stupid!

      by arktan on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:33:25 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Close but not exactly right. (0+ / 0-)

      Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't the voters and the candidates in Michigan and Florida told beforehand that their delegates would not be seated, and thus those elections would be meaningless.

      Perhaps it's nit picking but it is the other way around. The election is not meaningless because the delegates would not be seated, it is that the delegates would not be seated because the election was going to be meaningless.

      I'd say it like this:

      The voters and the candidates in Michigan and Florida were told beforehand that their elections would be meaningless, and thus their delegates from those elections would not be seated.

      The State parties are still able to seat delegates if a fair method for selecting them can be agreed upon.

  •  Winning by Super Delegate would be like an (0+ / 0-)

    Electoral College win without winning the popular vote. It's well within the rules, and we all know electoral votes trump popular votes. When they contradict, though, there is never a sense of legitimacy...especially for the losing side. Clinton (and her supporters) has to understand the price such a strategy would be. Dismissing the rancor simply because the strategy is not "cheating" or may/may not be a "coup" is a perilous risk.

    Cold silence has a tendency to atrophy any sense of compassion - Tool

    by mjoellnir on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:43:14 AM PDT

    •  both candidates will have to win with the super (0+ / 0-)

      delegates because its been a close race. The SD's are supposed to pick the best candidate in terms of winning the election and governing. They only have 795 votes and couldn't give it to a candidate who doesn't already have significant support amongst primary voters.

      It is not a coup or cheating. It is the rules that have been around for about 25 years and both candidates knew about them.

      We need a Clinton/Obama ticket if we are to have any chance of winning. Obama cannot win at the top of the ticket. The SD's know this. It will even be more clear as time goes on. Obama is currently losing to McCain by 9 points. He has negatives around 50% and he's still relatively new. He does terrible in the states vs. McCain. McCain is winning blue states.

      •  Well thats your opinion (0+ / 0-)

        and not based on data. Republicans knew full well that Hillary's negatives were the deciding factor. Her only hope was to raise Obama's to be viable again.

        Polls sway back and forth (need proof look a Kerry's at this time) but negatives remain firm. Take away voters from CA, NY, & MA and Hillary's negative remain above 50%. In other words, no chance at winning.

        Hillary kept touting her experience, but not what she learned from it. Perhaps its because all that sniper fire made her forget.

        by KingGeorgetheTurd on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:31:25 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It is based on data. Look at the polls that are (0+ / 0-)

          currently out. Obama is currently losing to McCain by 9 points. He is losing blue states. Independents and open-minded Republicans will not give him a second look. He's finished as a serious candidate for president.

          If Obama is the nominee it is only to placate the AA community. That is a mistake and will end up hurting all of us.

          Clinton/Obama 2008

          •  Again (0+ / 0-)

            you don't understand polling data. I may be a bit rusty since Ive been out of the business for 15 years but you ignore the base issue. Polls mean nothing, negatives are firm. In rank order Hillary not only leads in negatives, but Obama also trails Mccain. Polls can be moved easily but negatives have only one direction and that is up. Hillary has already crossed that threshold of 50% and is trying to move Obama's up, but doing so raises her own. Get it yet?

            Hillary kept touting her experience, but not what she learned from it. Perhaps its because all that sniper fire made her forget.

            by KingGeorgetheTurd on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:44:37 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Have you checked out Obama's negatives? (0+ / 0-)

              He's at about 50% ALREADY and he is still a relatively new candidate to many.

              He has lost Independents and Republicans as well as many Democrats. His only chance at ever becoming president is to be VP first. Otherwise he's finished.

              He should be up by 10 points over McCain at this point, but he's down by 9. He does terrible in the state polls. There is no good reason to believe that he has any realistic chance of winning. NONE.

              Have you seen how he's doing with working-class whites, Independents and Republicans? He has a racists mentor/reverand and voters care about that. Sad, but true.

              •  Sorry (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                but that data has yet been retrieved. Obama and Mccain have both broken the 50% mark many times. Hillary has not. But now I am not so sure. He may very well be above 50% now but that would only be because Hillary has chosen to do so. But consider this, if he has moved above 50% then she has certainly moved above 55%.

                Do wonder why there are SD's who now are debating about a new nominee? Gore/Obama ticket is now the discussion inside congress. Its not there yet, but one thing has been reached, Hillary is unelectable.

                Hillary kept touting her experience, but not what she learned from it. Perhaps its because all that sniper fire made her forget.

                by KingGeorgetheTurd on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:16:38 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  by 50% breach by Obama & mccain (0+ / 0-)

                  that is on positives, which indicate sub 50% negatives.

                  Hillary kept touting her experience, but not what she learned from it. Perhaps its because all that sniper fire made her forget.

                  by KingGeorgetheTurd on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:29:04 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Hillary is of course very electable (0+ / 0-)

                  and if she's not on the ticket, then Obama loses too many women and working-class whites.

                  Hillary has been a strong primary candidate but she would make a much better general election candidate.

                  There has to be a Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton ticket or the Democrats lose. Without Clinton women will abondon the Democrats this year and McCain will be president.

                  •  Numbers suggest just the opposite (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:

                    but as a Hillary supporter, math has never been your strong point. No sense talking about it anymore, you logic is based on belief and not facts.

                    Hillary kept touting her experience, but not what she learned from it. Perhaps its because all that sniper fire made her forget.

                    by KingGeorgetheTurd on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:50:36 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  show me the polls. I check out RealClearPolitics. (0+ / 0-)

                      com. They have a summary of the polls and Obama is losing blue states to McCain. Rasmusen has McCain beating Obama by 9 points.

                      Obama will not and cannot get elected president this year. He can possible get elected VP but not president. He will be lucky to get 37% of the white vote. His own campaign manager says he needs 70+% of the hispanic vote to win. 55% of hispanics say they will cross over and vote for McCain if Obama's the nominee.

                      Those are facts. You obviously have a hard time with the truth.

              •  "realistic" (0+ / 0-)

                Surprising word choice. Your posts are anything but.

                John McCain's biggest problem? When he opens his mouth, words come out.

                by kitebro on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 03:53:07 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  Agree with 1st 2, disagree with 3rd. (0+ / 0-)

        I agree with your first two paragraphs but strongly disagree with the third paragraph.

        I and several others would not vote for a Clinton/Obama ticket. EVER.

        I will never for for anyone who voted to give George Bush the war powers becasue it was an unconstitutional abdicaton of Congressional power as well as an illegal war based on lies.

        The polls are useless when they are based on the daily rise and fall of emotional propaganda.

        When Obama is put head to head with McCain, the choice will be clear between the genarations and the attitudes toward politics.

        McCain's endorsement by Robertson, Parsley, and Hagey will then get the place they deserve and Rev. Wright will seem sane and reasonable in comparison.

        •  Obama himself said that he didn't know how he (0+ / 0-)

          would vote. So, you wouldn't vote for Edwards? You wouldn't vote for all of the people who endorsed Obama who voted to give the authorization.

          Obama came out against the war, as did Hillary on the senate floor at the time. Obama was running for reelection in one of the most liberal districts in the country, he had to take the position he did. It was a good speech, but since being in the senate he has voted exactly the same as Hillary. I think you are giving him way too much credit on that one issue.

          Two of the most prominant war critics have endorsed Hillary: Joe Wilson and John Murtha.

          If Hillary is at the top of the ticket and we lose some votes, so be it, at least we have a very good chance of winning. With Obama on top, we have none. The Rev Wright tapes are deal-breakers for too many Americans.

    •  The Electoral College analogy is not apt. (0+ / 0-)

      I'm opposed to the Electoral College the way it is constituted today, but that doesn't prevent me from recognizing that the two systems of delegate conventions and Electoral College are completely different systems.

      There would have to be a pool of super-electors who could make the difference by their swing votes for the analogy to be true. There is no such pool.

      The winning by Electoral College when the popular vote is the other way is a result of the disproportionate number of electors given to small states with lower populations. Not because there is a pool of super-electors who were appointed outside the elections.

      The superdelegates are there for the very purpose of possibly overruling the popular vote. There are there in order to be the swing vote difference in a close nomination. If you don't like that system, then change it. But please don't make inaccurate analogies to support your argument. You only lose credibility that way.

      •  I think you missed my point...and the analogy (0+ / 0-)

        Distilled: in both one can win without winning the popular vote (how doesn't matter).  Winning the popular vote but losing the nomination/election is a difficult thing to accept, regardless of how legitimate the mechanism.

        The events of 2000 are not completely identical to what's going on now, but I submit to you the motivation behind the bitterness for both is winning the popular vote but losing the nomination/election.

        Cold silence has a tendency to atrophy any sense of compassion - Tool

        by mjoellnir on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:07:54 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Can't wait and see (0+ / 0-)

    We should assume that Hillary is going to try to win the Democratic Party nomination BY ANY MEANS POSSIBLE, even if it means rewriting the rules, violating convention, and destroying the Party in the process. I mean, isn't this the message that she and Bill have been sending everyone? I don't think I'm being paranoid; the Clintons are just very good at hardball politics. Assuming the worst case scenario does happen, what's the plan?  

    •  The Obama plan is to win the s-delegate votes (0+ / 0-)

      just like he is winning the primary delegate votes.

      That is not a secret. That is the way the Democratic Convention delegate system is set up by the rules.

      If you don't win 2025 delegates in the primaries, then you need to win enough super delegates to get that majority amount.  That's how the politics are played.

      All the Obama supporters who are whining about possibly losing enough superdelegates are creating an intersing phenomenon. They are trying to pursuade superdelegates to vote for Obama by having a tantrum if they vote for Clinton. That strategy may even work whether the official Obama campaign wants it or not.  Of course the Obama campaign doesn't want it out loud and must appear to be asking for superdelegate votes for positive reasons and not because of the potential tantrum of followers.

  •  When was, or will... (0+ / 0-)

    the will of the party electorate determined? Surely not in the mix du jour of primaries, caucuses, and the self-defeating Mi/Fla penalties.

    Regarding Mi and Fla, penalties should have been limited to those who broke the rules, or scheduled so as to not impact the whole country. That short-sighted, self-destructive, and undemocratic solution to the leaders' failure to build cohesiveness in primary planning was out of proportion to the predictable transition resistance. Again, the whole country needn't be penalized for local management failures.  

    As a life-long Democrat I've seen nominations based on as few as 14 state primaries in 1968; I'm grateful it's getting better. But the "will of the electorate" is a goal, not a historical or necessary element, and in 2008, it is impossible to know or even calculate. This country and our party deserves full enfranchisement and a 50-state primary. Until then, the Super Delegates are critical in creating sanity and protecting the party from a faulty process gamed by Republicans and voters uncommitted to the party.

    HR 676 or California's SB-840 - the only health reform proposals worth my vote.

    by kck on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:50:59 AM PDT

  •  If... (0+ / 0-)

    The party electorate will only vote for Obama, and if such an event spurs them to not vote for Clinton, then they will prove themselves completely worthless anyway and the party elite will have no regrets about losing them.

    After all, what good are all these new "converts" if they were only ever for Obama anyway?

    The party elite feels as if you're trying to take over what was theirs all along. It's even true, to a degree.

    It's going to be so much fun to watch Clinton be nominated. Though, I am scared of which Bush will follow her in 2016.

  •  A 'Black Church' Vs. radical feminist comparison. (0+ / 0-)

    With Clinton commenting on Rev. Wright, we are heading down a road that will forever change the Democratic Party.

    With John McCain acting Statemen-like about the whole situation, and saying 'guilt by association' is something he doesn't believe in, there is no doubt that if Clinton keeps this up we will lose the Black vote.

    Progressives, Democrats, cannot win without our most loyal block voters(African-Americans). We will be finished.

    The money quote from Booman.

    So, why won't blacks vote for Clinton if she is the nominee? For starters, it is because she will have won unconventionally, and on the argument that Barack Obama is unelectable. Why is he unelectable? Well, currently the Clinton campaign is saying he is unelectable because he has connections to an urban black church and a controversial pastor. That is an argument that, whatever its objective merits, is a straight rebuke of the legitimacy of African-Americans as Americans. To win, Clinton will have had to convince the overwhelmingly white superdelegates that Obama's connections to the black community render him unacceptable to the broader general electorate. They cannot win any other way.

    Is there any sense in which Obama's nomination is dependent on convincing the electorate that Clinton's gender renders her unelectable? No. First of all, Obama has already secured the nomination in the traditional sense, and he doesn't need to make extracurricular arguments about electability. But, secondly, his campaign has always (until recently) argued that Clinton is fully qualified to be president and has never to my knowledge raised her gender as a negative in this campaign (either overtly, or covertly).

    Can you imagine the uproar if Senator Obama started using gender as a weapon the way Clinton and the media have used race?

    How hard would it be to grab a bunch of quotes and videos from radical Clinton supporters like Marcia Pappas? And then to tie those around Clinton's neck and painting her as some kind of radical 'femi-Nazi'.

    Sure, that would be like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, it would rip apart the Democratic Party, tear it asunder one might say. But it would be the only comparison to what the Clintons and her supporters are doing to Obama right now.

    It's not a sign of weakness to learn from a mistake. It's a sign of stupidity to keep doing the same things over and over without ever learning~Dave Dial

    by DAVE DIAL on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:17:24 PM PDT

    •  McCain has to say "ministers" don't count (0+ / 0-)

      becasue the ministers who support him are right-wing nuts like Robertson, Parsley, and Hagey.

      These guys make Rev. Wright look like a moderate.

      Clintons want to deflect on Wright so that Hillary's involvement in "the Fellowship" prayer group doesn't get center stage.

  •  As long as Florida and Michigan are excluded (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    any comments about "subverted the will of the party electorate" ring pretty hollow!

    Nill illigitimi carborundum

    by kansasr on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:18:25 PM PDT

    •  They will only be excluded by their own fault. (0+ / 0-)

      Florida and Michigan state parties can settle it by agreeing on a fair method of selecting delegates.

      The campaigns in the two states are not agreeing on a plan and so the state parties can't agree on a plan. That lack of agreement is their own fault. If the deadlock continues too long, the state parties can decide on a plan whether or not the campaigns can agree and then let the campaigns take their concerns to the Democratic Convention credentials committee.

      I have no sympathy for either state if the state party in each state bickers so much that they don't pick any delegates at all.

      •  Bah humbug!!!! (0+ / 0-)

        BO is the one having his cronies hold up a revote in MI. He's afraid of facing the MI voters, so he failed to agree to a reasonable solution.

        The VOTERS are not responsible for the debacle, the MDP is. Strip them of super status, and come up with a plan for either revoting or seating the delegates. 50/50 is not acceptable, only a slap in my face.

        You'll always miss 100% of the shots you don't take. ~ Wayne Gretzky (Attention congress....this applies to more than hockey!!)

        by dskinner on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 03:09:25 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Which is worse to piss off, bloggers or voters? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    As much as I appreciate the influence of this blog, I don't think pissing off Kos would mean as much as pissing off most of the Democrats that voted in the primary.

    A super delegate coup would turn the convention into Chicago '68, except the rioting would all be happening inside the convention center.

    Also I should mention that my father (a long-time liberal activist), told me he simply won't vote for Hillary Clinton. I haven't found out why yet, but my father just hates her. Could be MSM propaganda, or maybe he saw through her bullshit before I did.

    From the rich to the poor, only one thing trickles down.

    by jimbo92107 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:23:47 PM PDT

    •  I share your father's decison against HRC (0+ / 0-)

      I consider myself a radical progressive and I would never vote for Hillary Clinton. I would rather vote for a third party or not vote, than vote for HRC.

      Why? For many reasons. My seven biggest reasons are here: My Election Litmus Tests - Why I  Will Never Vote for Hillary

      Of course the general reason not tied to a specific issue is that I just don't trust her to act on principle. I see her as a total agent of political expediency who would order an invasion of Iran if her generals told her it was a winnable war.

      •  My mother... (0+ / 0-)

        ..who has never voted GOP and has been voting since Carter might be convinced to vote for Obama but it would take hours of conversation with her to do so. She believes as an article of faith that Obama really is an empty suited, black-favoring, closet racist, panderer.

        Which is crazy. Look I know HRC seems me as an obstacle to be over-come, but if she won she'd try to help the country. I think it would be a massive failure, but there it is.

        There's something attractive about invincible ignorance... for the first 5 seconds.

        by MNPundit on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:59:11 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Just another application of (0+ / 0-)

    the old law school maxim:

    When the facts are against you, pound on the law (i.e., the rules).  
    When the law is against you, pound on the facts.
    When the facts and the law are against you, pound on the table.

    Armando is merely pounding on the table.

    With all the sand that gets inside this world, we should all be motherfucking pearls.       --Antje Duvakot

    by GOTV on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:00:31 PM PDT

  •  Thank God! (0+ / 0-)

    Finally someone of comparable stature is taking these guys on publicly. They seem to hate Obama with a passion that has always been reserved for Republicans or Joe Lieberman.

    They're both pushing for someone whose greatest desire is to marginalize them.

    There's something attractive about invincible ignorance... for the first 5 seconds.

    by MNPundit on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:55:50 PM PDT

  •  If Obama Wins Without Winning Popular Vote... (0+ / 0-)

    He will be the first in modern history--from EITHER party-- to subvert the will of the people to attain the nomination.  Yes, that would be within the rules, but the outrage from Clinton supporters wouldn't go away for 20 years if that happened. Remember that nationwide, 56% of registered voters are women.

  •  How soon we forget... (0+ / 0-)


    You'll always miss 100% of the shots you don't take. ~ Wayne Gretzky (Attention congress....this applies to more than hockey!!)

    by dskinner on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 03:05:29 PM PDT

  •  Rules? (0+ / 0-)

    No one said it was against the rules.

    But the rules are ass-rapingly retarded, and need to change.

    Can we please get rid of the power of the establishment wing of the party? Can we make it be about the progressive base and the will of the people? Please?

    In the end, it seems all too often, both parties strive to race towards the middle until the distinction between the two is imperceivable. It makes you wonder why we continue to insist on having two parties (a right, and a sort-of left) instead of three (a right, a left, and a center party).

    Terrorists can attack freedom, but only Congress can destroy it.

    by romulusnr on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:22:46 PM PDT

  •  Why aren't the "big guys" declaring? (0+ / 0-)

    If the democrats REALLY want to end this thing - why don't the super super delegates get some guts and declare now - Gore, Edwards, Pelosi, Reid - I don't who else fits into this category, but they should come out of the closet.

  •  What exactly happened to Jerome Armstrong ? (0+ / 0-)

    I remember him as a pretty level-headed blogger back in the day.

    All this desperate Hillary propping is perplexing.

  •  Mark Penn - Union Buster is trying to orchestrate (0+ / 0-)

    the DLC/Hilary Clinton democratic party bust.

    I'll bet the rumor that most Clinton staffers want to personally slide a knife in his greasy looking gut is true.  

    From Day One, her campaign has been run so horribly, it is unsurprising that it would come down to this, that some HRC staff would feel that way.

    A fine quotation is a diamond on the finger of a man of wit, and a pebble in the hand of a fool. - Joseph Roux

    by 99 Percent Pure on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:52:48 PM PDT

  •  Hillary Chose Big State Strategy and Lost! (0+ / 0-)

    The clear choice between Obama and Hillary is choosing between an activist, grassroots, 50-State Democratic party of the future or the tired, stale, "Big-State" strategizing, Beltway, top-down Democratic party of the past.  It's also a choice about winning(Obama) or losing(Clinton).

  •  Does the "popular vote" count include caucuses? (0+ / 0-)

    I've been wondering this for a while.  Because frankly, caucuses aren't all that democratic.  Look at Texas.

  •  "the will of the electorate" (0+ / 0-)

    at this point in time almost a 50-50 split in the pop vote and little more than 100 delegate lead for Obama.  That will of the electorate?

    and by the way....obama can't cross the finish line either with pledged delegates.  To me, that means neither one can lock up the nomination, which to me means both have a legit reason to carry on their campaign.

    And one other thing....can you imagine what the media and your daily kos'ers would be doing if it were Clinton that were preventing Michigan and Florida from counting?????

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site