You know, I wasn’t sure if my former senator was actually going to throw his hat into the endorsement ring.
(WaPo):
In the immediate aftermath of Edwards’ decision to drop from the race, both Clinton and Obama made a pilgrimage to North Carolina to huddle with the former candidate and make their pitch for his support.The timing of this is quite interesting, given the proximity of the West Virginia primary, where the Two Americas message that Edwards ran on is highly relevant, as is the racial divide that was in stark relief in that primary. However, a slice of this demographic, as we’ve seen, has no qualms declaring that they will not vote for a black man under any circumstances — even if voting for a Republican is against their basic economic interests. You have to think those folks are unlikely to be moved by an endorsement by Edwards.By all accounts, those meetings left Edwards genuinely undecided. Obama’s message of change and his call to end the influence peddling in Washington were clearly an obvious fit for Edwards’ sympathies, but he retained some lingering concerns about Obama’s depth of experience. Clinton, on the other hand, had considerable experience but struggled to represent the sort of change that Edwards believed was necessary to win the nomination.
Rumors flew for months about Edwards’s leaning although of late it had been expected that if he endorsed a candidate, it would be Obama.
Matt Bennett, a former Clinton Administration official, described Edwards as the “troubadour of the working class” and said the North Carolina senator’s endorsement of Obama makes it “tougher for Clinton to make the case that working class Democrats can’t [or] won’t support Obama.”
During his 2004 bid for president, Edwards focused his campaign message almost exclusively on middle-class and lower middle-class people — insisting that his southern roots, his father’s experience as a mill worker and his own up from the bootstraps success story uniquely positioned him to represent their interests in the White House.
So what, if anything, do you think this endorsement means in the greater scheme of things?
64 Responses to “Edwards endorses Obama”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
I think it means it’s time to pull together for the sake of the party, but I’m afraid Hillary will see it as the politics of piling on, redux — the boys’ club closing ranks to keep her out.
If Obama picks Edwards as Veep, who is going to clean up all the headexplosions in West Virginia?
I’m sure there will be plenty of sheets available for the cleanup.
I’m wondering if John saw the NARAL meltdown coming early this morning and decided to change the story.
Probably not, I don’t think you plan and execute an endorsement in 7 or so hours.
pat Buchanan gone berserk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVeFyV0iLrk
It’s nice timing, politically. If he’d gone before WV, everyone would have spun that primary as a referendum on his endorsement, and it would have made Clinton’s inevitable win a bigger deal. By rolling it out in time for the nightly news the evening *after* WV, he steps on Clinton’s victory story (such as it was).
What does it mean? It means this thing is over. It means that whether Clinton stays in the race through the end of this month, or fights for MI and FL — whatever she does — it’s over. Obama’s trickle of superdelegates is turning into a flood. He’s going to be the nominee.
Far better that it end like this — with folks rallying around Obama — than with arm-twisting to get her out of the race.
I love how black voters are suddenly a majority of the Democratic party according to Buchannan. Simply amazing feat for, um, 10-12% of the electorate?
“However, a slice of this demographic, as we’ve seen, has no qualms declaring that they will not vote for a black man under any circumstances — even if voting for a Republican is against their basic economic interests.”
It’s great that some people really stand firm on their principles - in this case that it’s better to suffer an even worse economic collapse that will bring direct harm to them and their families, just as long as they can continue to treat some people as if they were less than fully human.
That is one hell of a set of priorities…
I am SO very proud to share a continent with them. Mainly because I’m pretty sure that’s the ONLY thing I share with them…
Good lord, I thought Pat “A Brief for Whitey” Buchanan’s head was about to explode. He was off the rails at high speed.
Brooklynite May 14, 2008 at 8:03 pm
What does it mean? It means this thing is over. It means that whether Clinton stays in the race through the end of this month, or fights for MI and FL — whatever she does — it’s over. Obama’s trickle of superdelegates is turning into a flood. He’s going to be the nominee.
the way I see it, Hillary continuing campaign hinges on these:
1. able to convince the public to keep supporting her (money primarily)
2. She has to change the 2025 to 2209, specially the power that be in the party. (she has been pushing hard on this, with some movement. But she is not all the way there. And it can collapse any moment, since the larger media is not with her)
3. Then she has to convince DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee at May 31 , to change FL/MI to her favor.
She has to do this all before Obama seal the nomination getting the 80-100SD he needs to reach 2025.
My sense, the worst case scenario where Hillary will fight it on the floor will happen.
Brooklynite nailed the politics of this: Edwards’s endorsement really means little in practical terms now, since he has few active voters to move — does anyone believe an endorsement before the WV primary would have won Obama the 7% or so of the vote that went for Edwards?
On the overall question of people’s racism: I know the campaign can’t put it this way, but to some extent (not 100% given Obama’s vagueness about getting all US forces home from Iraq immediately), the question in November will be this:
Would you rather have a black President bring your child home from Iraq safe and sound, or have a white President bring him or her home in a box?
Anyone who has to think for even a millisecond about their answer has some serious soul-searching to do.
When black people started playing baseball, basketball, football, etc. with white players, there were all those who threatened to quit, who threatened to boycott games, threatened violence.
Now we know that the teams that maintained racism the longest suffered the worst in terms of losing records and lagging finances and attendance - the true curse of the Red Sox is now widely known to be the Yawkee family’s refusal to integrate the team. That’s because the minority players broadened the talent pool, and the fans decided rather quickly that winning teams were more attractive than losing teams regardless of the race of the players. Contrast the Red Sox with the Boston Celtics, who served the same market, integrated much earlier, and brought home championships for years as a result of selecting players on their merit.
The threats only go so far when push comes to shove. Talk does not necessarily last long enough to matter.
Here’s what I’m thinking, Squashed — we’re rapidly approaching the point where Obama can give Clinton MI and FL and still get the nomination. I can’t find a cite right now, but it’s my understanding that if you give Michigan’s uncommitteds to Obama, seating both delegations on the basis of the primary vote would only net Clinton about 55 delegates.
I have a hunch that by May 31, Obama’s not going to need to keep MI and FL out.
A Edward’s endorsement of Obama paves the way for a compromise on seating the MI delegation by giving Hillary all of the votes she won and giving Obama all of the rest.
The timing stomps on Hillary’s victory story for WV, so that probably explains the timing. But I think the _reason_ is because Edwards believes that
1) Obama will be the nominee
2) If he wins by disenfranchising FL and MI, then his win will be illigitimate and threaten his ability to win in November.
So, for the good of the party, the best course of action is to insure that MI and FL get counted, and he can remove one of the major stumbling blocks to an agreement by throwing his support to Obama.
Note that he can’t solve the problem by throwing his support to Clinton. If he did that, then he would probably gurantee that Obama would be afraid to count MI and FL, but Edwards doesn’t have enough delegates to give the win to Clinton outright.
By endorsing Obama BEFORE May 31 he can help prevent to coming trainwreck.
Good for him. I hope it works.
If he wins by disenfranchising FL and MI, then his win will be illigitimate and threaten his ability to win in November.
I don’t get this line of reasoning - those states disenfranchised themselves; the state governments voted to push their primaries up against party rules and were well aware of the consequences. Everyone agreed to the terms at the time.
The bottom line is that if Obama were in Clinton’s position, he would be equally wrong to demand that those delegates be seated.
The other fallout, if the original decision about FL and MI is overturned or changed in the rules committee in some manner that does seat some or all delegates in some configuration, that only encourages other states to do the same next time around. If there’s no penalty to moving a primary up, then I want NC to go ahead of Iowa next time.
Mr Edwards won 19 committed delegates before he withdrew from the race. He can’t order those 19 to vote for Mr Obama, but the greater probability is that they will, or most of them will, if he asks them to do so. That would bring Mr Obama within 125 of securing the nomination.
“What does it mean?”
Another nail in the coffin of a very rotted and foul smelling campaign.
A campaign that will not be able or willing to pay its vendors.
A campaign that is now becoming a cliche- in years to come, being in a no-win position but hanging on regardless for no other reason than over-inflated ego will go down as “pulling a Hillary”.
For Edwards? Maybe AG, SCOTUS, Sec of something or ambassador somewhere. For his supporters? TBD.
Tejota, I think my kids would like to go live with you instead of me. Their “but its not faiiiirrr” response to having the 1) rules clearly laid out 2)consequences for breaking the rules clearly laid out and 3)having the rules enforced by suffering the consequences might actually get them some traction with you!
Steelworkers Endorse Obama
Pittsburgh – The United Steelworkers today issued the following statement of endorsement of Senator Barack Obama for President:
“When the presidential primary contests began last year, our Union felt strongly that because of Senator John Edwards’s deep commitment to working people and because of our shared beliefs, he deserved our strong endorsement. His belief that unfair trade policies must be changed, his commitment to pass the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) to restore workers’ rights to freely choose workplace representation, and his proposal for universal health care were widely shared by our members.
“Today, by virtue of a unanimous vote of our International Executive Board, we find ourselves once again in agreement with Senator Edwards, this time with his decision last evening to endorse Senator Barack Obama. And thus today, the United Steelworkers enthusiastically endorses Senator Barack Obama to be the next President of the United States.
(no link)
Ms. Kate.
1) The rules were that all states that had their elections before a certain date were subject to sanctions.
SIX states broke the rules. only two were punished.
2) The penalty given by the rules was 50% loss of delegates. the two states that were punished lost 100%, not 50%. A penalty that is NOT part of the rules, but was rather applied by an Obama supporter who happens to be a DNC official and had the power to (temporarily) apply a more severe punishment that the rules called for.
The rules say that the only _binding_ rule is what the committee at the convention decides. Everything up to that point is just advisory.
3) I would be delighted if the rules had been enforced UNIFORMLY. But they were enforced selectively and with a clear bias in favor of one candidate. This is far worse that not enforcing the rules at all.
A LOT of Obama supporters have lied about what the rules are. I suspect that the lies get told so often that most of the people who repeat the lies don’t actually know that it’s a lie.
Go ahead and research, find out what the rules ACTUALLY are. If you actually behaved towards your kids the way the DNC have behaved in this election, then you would be a very bad parent. But i doubt very sincerely that you do that. I’m confident that once you know what the rules actually are, you join me.
Pam Spalding.
I don’t get this line of reasoning - those states disenfranchised themselves; the state governments voted to push their primaries up against party rules and were well aware of the consequences. Everyone agreed to the terms at the time.
States don’t vote. People do. The “everyone” who agreed doesn’t actually include the people who vote.
So IF Hillary and Obama had “agreed” that MI and FL votes would not count. They committed a crime against democracy. THEY DID NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO MAKE THAT AGREEMENT. The votes don’t belong to the candidates, they belong to the people.
But, in fact, Hillary, and Obama DIDN’T agree. Were never ASKED never asked to agree that MI and FL would not count. The were only asked to agree to not campaign there.
The bottom line is that if Obama were in Clinton’s position, he would be equally wrong to demand that those delegates be seated.
Bullshit. It is NEVER ok to win by disenfranchising your opponents supporters. NEVER.
Remember, Civics 101. Government derives it’s just powers from THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED.
The other fallout, if the original decision about FL and MI is overturned or changed in the rules committee in some manner that does seat some or all delegates in some configuration, that only encourages other states to do the same next time around.
I have two answers to this the first is
So? Why not let them? what exactly would be so harmful about that? Why exactly does the DNC need to be involved in setting the order of primarys anyway - what democratic purpose is served here? This looks like Bureacrats getting their knickers in a twist rather than some principled need for ‘rules’ to avoid chaos.
The second is that there are other ways to enforce their power without taking the peoples right to vote away. If the goal had been to enforce the rules they would have done something else.
The could have taken the states Super delegates away. (That way the PEOPLE aren’t disenfranchised, but the party leaders are). Or penalized them by witholding DNC funds. Or change the delegate formula.
or they could just admit that the DNC doesn’t have any right to assign primary dates in the first place, and step aside.
A win that depends on dis-enfranchising voters is a win that lacks the consent of the governed. If they only way the DNC can enforce their will is by taking away voting rights, then the DNC should just admit that they are powerless and stand aside - for the good of the party.
Rules that take voting rights away are bad rules.
And in this case, the 100% penalty WASN’T EVEN FOLLOWING THE RULES.
SIX states broke the rules. only two were punished.
Name the other four states, please.
1) The rules were that all states that had their elections before a certain date were subject to sanctions.
SIX states broke the rules. only two were punished.
The certain date was February 5, 2008. Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina were the only states the Dems allowed to have primaries and/or caucuses before Feb. 5 and they did so. Florida and Michigan violated the rules set up by the Dems in 2006. No other states held primaries before Feb. 5, so where do you get six states from?
On Saturday 25 August 2007, the Democratic National Committee Rules and Bylaws Committee determined that the Florida 2008 National Convention Delegate Selection process, which begins with a 29 January 2008 primary, violates party rules. The DNC RBL voted to strip the Florida Democratic Party of all its 210 delegates to the 2008 Democratic National Convention unless a new plan is adopted within the next 30 days. I see no Obama here
1. State of Denial
2. State of Confusion
3. State of Mind
4. State of Being
(ie, Tejota is full of shit)
RULE 11ANo meetings, caucuses, conventions or primaries which constitute the first determining stage the presidential nomination process (the date of the primary in primary states, and the date of first tier caucus in caucus states) may be held prior to the first Tuesday in February or after the second Tuesday in June in the calendar year of the national convention. Provided, however, the Iowa precinct caucuses may be held no earlier than 22 days before the first Tuesday in February; that the Nevada first-tier caucuses may be held no earlier than 17 days before the
first Tuesday in February; that the New Hampshire primary may be held no earlier than 14
days before the first Tuesday in February; and that the South Carolina primary may be held
no earlier than 7 days before the first Tuesday in February. In no instance may a state which
scheduled delegate selection procedures on or between the first Tuesday in February and the
second Tuesday in June 1984 move out of compliance with the provisions of this rule.
So, lets do the math.
first Tuesday in February is Feb 7.
22 days before the first Tuesday in February is Jan 16 (IA Earliest)
17 days before the first Tuesday in February is Jan 21 (NV Earliest)
14 days before the first Tuesday in February is Jan 24 (NH Earliest)
7 days before the first Tuesday in February is Jan 31 (SC Earliest)
The Iowa Caucus was January 3, 2008. 13 days before the rules permitted.
The New Hampshire Primary was January 8, 2008 16 days before the rules permitted.
The South Carolina Primary was January 26, 2008 5 days before the rules permitted
The Nevada Caucus was January 19, 2008, 2 days before the rules permitted.
Now, I’m sure someone will say that these states had exemptions. But that’s exactly my point. 4 states broke the rules AND THE RULES WERE WAIVED FOR THEM. 2 states broke the rules and were punished more severely than the rules specified.
The difference? the DNC wanted these states to go first. BUT nowhere in the rules does it say that these states can break the rules if other states break them first.
If you are going to be rules lawyers - then be rules lawyers! Know them, and honor them. I’d rather be a vote counter myself. This is a democracy after all, if only just barely.
The Iowa Caucus was January 3, 2008. 13 days before the rules permitted.
The New Hampshire Primary was January 8, 2008 16 days before the rules permitted.
Wait, you’re trying to argue that because Iowa holds their caucuses first — the same way they’ve been doing it since 1972 — that proves that any other state can do whatever they want? What are you smoking?
And not only has New Hampshire been having the first primary election since 1977, it’s actually written into state law that they get to have the first primary.
Florida and Michigan tried to leapfrog over 30-year traditions that are not only rules but actual state laws and you want us to cry for them?
The Rules Committee and the DNC agreed that
1. Iowa would be the first caucus.
2. New Hampshire would be the first primary.
3. South Carolina and Nevada would be early states to have their turn in the spotlight.
4. Michigan and Florida were told to wait their turn.
5. The earliest any other state could hold their caucus/primary was February 5.
So, while it’s true that the authorized early primary states did not have their primaries/caucuses on the exact recommended dates, the basic integrity of the early primary process was maintained.
Now, I’m sure someone will say that these states had exemptions. But that’s exactly my point.
My links are in moderation, but your complaint is that Iowa was allowed to go first and New Hampshire was allowed to go second the same way they’ve been doing it for over 30 years?
Seriously, what the fuck are you smoking that you think that’s a winning argument? “Oh, sure, Iowa’s hosted the first caucus since 1920, but that only proves they’ve been breaking the rules for 80 years!”
Hector B.
That would be honoring the spirit of the rules. But I doubt you want to open that door. Once you do that you have to start being concerned with things like honoring the spirit of the democratic process and things like basic fairness. (as in, the punishment should fit the crime)
Since the basic order of the early primaries was preserved once the 4 mentioned states broke the rules also, there was no need to enact a penalty at all. The spirit of the rules had been honored even if the letter of them had been broken.
No harm, no foul.
Instead the penalty that was enacted was instead a vast overreaction. suggesting that the reason for the penalty was to tilt the playing field rather than enforce the rules.
Mnemosyne.
Two states, UTTERLY unrepresentative of the the demographics of the Democratic party have, for 30 years been allowed a dominant position in the choosing of our candidates.
And we wonder why we don’t win elections more often. ;>
Two states, UTTERLY unrepresentative of the the demographics of the Democratic party have, for 30 years been allowed a dominant position in the choosing of our candidates.
That’s not what you were arguing. You were arguing that because Iowa and New Hampshire are “breaking the rules” by having their events first, it’s fine for Florida and Michigan to push their primaries ahead without permission from the DNC. And that’s a bugfuck insane argument.
You can complain about “rules lawyers” all you like, but once you start claiming that Iowa and Michigan are exactly the same case, people are going to start slowly backing away from you and calling for the men with straightjackets to come take you away because you’ve clearly lost touch with reality.
That’s not what you were arguing. You were arguing that because Iowa and New Hampshire are “breaking the rules” by having their events first, it’s fine for Florida and Michigan to push their primaries ahead without permission from the DNC. And that’s a bugfuck insane argument.
No. thats a bugfuck strawman.
I showed you the rules. they clearly state (o.k. not that clearly - the language is a mess). They unequivocally state the earliest dates that states are allowed to have the primaries. The rules are right there, read them. 6 states violated Rule 11a. Not 2 states, but 6 of them.
I neglected to post the penalty, it’s a bit harder to dig out. But it basically says that the ‘normal’ penalty is 50% loss of delegates, but that the rules committee can do anything it wants.
Got that? anything. as in: NO penalty is just as much following the rules as 100% penalty.
The decision to penalize 100% wasn’t rule following, it was a thumb on the scales of the election. And it was fundamental violation of the spirit of Democracy.
By the way. I’m an Edwards supporter, not that that should matter since what we are arguing is the plain language of the rules and basic principals of fairness and voting rights.
But it seems Obama supporters these days equate advocating voting rights with shilling for Hillary. I’m not, I’ve been all about voting rights since the 2000 election was stolen. Always and everywhere - the right to vote is paramount - or all of the rest is just theatre.
Tejota May 15, 2008 at 4:58 pm
States don’t vote. People do. The “everyone” who agreed doesn’t actually include the people who vote.
yes it does. Unless you totally reject the idea of ‘representational democracy’. Those dates are set by legislation of FL and MI. (ie. the people elected those sods.)
now, in case of MI, it’s probably republicans gaming the system to create havoc.
in case of FL. it’s pretty much pro hillary crew fscking with the schedule to stack her deck.
More importantly, Hillary agrees on all those rules. Now she is back paddling so fast. She looks like a 8 years old loosing monopoly game. (I can dig all the article online discussing at length complete with documents and videos)
Basically, it underlines again and again. Hillary IS NOT trustworthy. On top of completely incapable of creating plan & strategy to win within the rule.
this is the basic timeline
1. parties big wig (including Hillary’s crew) set up primary game plan and schedule. Everybody agrees.
2. FL and MI decide to change the schedule. Party has to come down hard. (Again, everybody agrees, signing pledge. Hillary included)
3. Hillary loses super tuesday (broke promise and pledge. start campaigning and put name on the ballot)
4. Hillary completely loses the primary. (Now she starts new talking points. This or that doesn’t count. It’s popular votes. It’s Super delegates. etc. etc… But still she loses even worst.)
5. So now she is at her last hope. change the rules in May 31 meeting.
Obama plays it right. Just jerk Hillary and her rule changing game. Make her spend energy and wasting money. (remember her botched speech in MI house?)
…
So my take. Just keep make her wasting money and energy chasing something that she has no control.
She will be in $30-35m in debt by the time this is over.
Hillary herself mentioning 2025!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OsYnegoV28
(I’ll find the MI/FL don’t count interview)
Basically, this is Hillary losing the game and trying to change the rule. Pretty pathetic for somebody who runs for president. This is more like a freshmen trying to bargain late homework.
http://uspolitics.tribe.net/thread/6976fb07-8777-4efe-a0ed-5edde73e9665
hillary signed a pledge on MI, FL!
COURTING VOTERS in Iowa and New Hampshire, last August Sen. Hillary Clinton signed a pledge not to “campaign or participate” in the Michigan or Florida Democratic primaries. She participated in both primaries and is campaigning in Florida. Which proves, again, that Hillary Clinton is a liar.
www.nytimes.com/2007/09/02/us/politics/02dems.html
Clinton, Obama and Edwards Join Pledge to Avoid Defiant States
“We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process,” Patti Solis Doyle, the Clinton campaign manager, said in a statement.
The pledge sought to preserve the status of traditional early-voting states and bring order to an unwieldy series of primaries that threatened to accelerate the selection process. It was devised to keep candidates from campaigning in Florida, where the primary is set for Jan. 29, and Michigan, which is trying to move its contest to Jan. 15.
Here is what Hillary said about the contest in Michigan on that youtube clip above:
“I personally did not think it made any difference whether my name was on the ballot. You know, It’s clear this election they are having is not going to count for anything.”
www.dailykos.com/story/2008/4/6/12656/59124/210/490995
(this is way back when that liar was still winning/inevitable)
Handy Guide to how Hillary Clinton is trying to cheat on the Four State Pledge (Michigan/Florida)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5419518&mesg_id=5419518
Four State Pledge Letter 2008
Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina
August 31, 2007
WHEREAS, Over a year ago, the Democratic National Committee established a 2008 nominating calendar;
WHEREAS, this calendar honors the racial, ethnic, economic and geographic diversity of our party and our country;
WHEREAS, the DNC also honored the traditional role of retail politics early in the nominating process, to insure that money alone will not determine our presidential nominee;
WHEREAS, it is the desire of Presidential campaigns, the DNC, the states and the American people to bring finality, predictability and common sense to the nominating calendar.
THEREFORE, I _______________, Democratic Candidate for President, pledge I shall not campaign or participate in any state which schedules a presidential election primary or caucus before Feb. 5, 2008, except for the states of Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina, as “campaigning” is defined by rules and regulations of the DNC.
More importantly, Hillary agrees on all those rules.
I said it more nicely before. Now let me be clear. That is a LIE. She and Edwards & Obama agreed not to campaign. They did NOT agree to directly disenfranchise any voters - they were never asked the question. It was probably against the law to ask them that particular question. Certainly none of them have any right to ‘agree’ to throw your or my vote away.
Basically, it underlines again and again. Hillary IS NOT trustworthy.
No it tells us that YOU are not trustworthy. You lie about what she agreed to and then slander her when she breaks your bogus agreement.
A times like these I begin to wonder if Hillary’s ENTIRE rep for dishonesty and calculation was made this way. People lie about what she said or did, and then (other people) condemn her for the imaginary act.
“We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process,” Clinton’s campaign manager said in a statement Saturday. “And we believe the DNC’s rules and its calendar provide the necessary structure to respect and honor that role. Thus, we will be signing the pledge to adhere to the DNC approved nominating calendar.”
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=3134
(Do Hillary supporter really think the internet is going to forget all her words/promise/pledge and press releases? Seriously, …
this is getting pathetic. specially with the amount of video of her saying all sort of reasoning. She should be removed from senate period.)
Tejota May 15, 2008 at 8:56 pm
More importantly, Hillary agrees on all those rules.
I said it more nicely before. Now let me be clear. That is a LIE.
LOLZ…
LYING hillary supporters are a dime a dozen. You are not the first one who try that gambit. yer old news. Your Kung Fu is weak.
be back later with more videos, let you chew Hillary’s own words. (this is hilarious.)
Squashed - here in FL, it was the Repugs that screwed the system for the early vote as well (and I’m sure they knew EXACTLY what they were doing). We barely have any Dem representation in this state. It is a red, red state.
I’m still waiting to see the quote where she ‘agrees’ to disenfranchise FL and MI.
I’ll stipulate that she agreed not to campaign. and that she agreed to the primary schedule. (seriously, like any of the candidates had a choice on the schedule?).
And I’ll call you again on the lie that she EVER agreed to discard the votes of MI and FL.
oh, and this is quite dishonest.
2. FL and MI decide to change the schedule. Party has to come down hard.
It’s more like this.
2) FL and MI jump ahead of the line.
2a) the ‘first 4′ jump ahead of them
2b) months pass while the DNC dithers about what to do.
2c) DNC announces ‘death penalty’ ruling for MI and FL and no penalty for the other rulebreakers.
2d) Obama talks Edwards and Kuchinich into joining him in taking their names of the MI ballot. (note that he does not take his name of the ballot in FL). He tells the folks of IA that he did this because he thinks they are so much more important than the other states. This is widely believed to be a clever move for him since he is expected to lose badly in MI anyway. MI Obama supporters are pissed a him. (as they should be). IA voters approve.
and of I can’t let this pass without a correction
PartyDonna Brazilehassees the opportunity to come down hardAnd finally this quote from Hillary Clinton
“I personally did not think it made any difference whether my name was on the ballot. You know, It’s clear this election they are having is not going to count for anything.”
Is a statement of fact. There is no indication whether she agrees that it should count. only that she believes that it will not count. That is: She believes that Obama supporters in the DNC, in combination his trick of removing his name from the ballot have successfully disenfranchised the voters of MI.
I’d like to believe that this statement is one of disapproval but there is no evidence either way. The only thing we know for sure is that Obama (and Edwards) have worked to insure these votes are discarded and the Hillary has not.
Obama and Edwards - Guilty of crimes against deomcracy. (removing their names from the ballot was not the sort of thing someone who believes in democracy would do).
Hillary - Not Tempted.
2025 scenario:
1600.5 Obama earned on own (incl NC adjust, not MD douche)
8 Edwards so far
47 night of May 20
15 bare minimum in PR
9 Montana lock
8 South Dakota lock
= 1687.5 total, 1627 is majority pledged
(Has 291.5 supers, for grand total of 1979, 1985 with Pelosi Club.)
2209 scenario:
1687.5 from above
67 Florida, worst case (already selected, named)
31 Michigan, worst case (already selected, named)
= 1785.5 total, 1783.5 is majority pledged
(Has 291.5 supers +8 from MI/FL, for grand total of 2085 absolute worst case, 2091 with Pelosi Club.)
Note that 31 from Michigan is the single worst case conceivable. Obama got 31 of the 36 uncommitted CD-level delegates, with 19 statewide uncommitted still TBD on June 14 if no deal is reached before then.
The significance of the 8 Edwards switches (and the NC adjustment), is Obama’s locked into results in the remaining 5 contests over the next 19 days that mean he cannot fail to get the majority of pledged delegates under every single scenario the Clintons want to pretend is real.
Check out the rest of the virtual scenario here and further analysis here
www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/5/15/12537/4783/401/516229
“It is important also that we are clear about one issue. At this time, no suggested alternative process has been able to meet three specific and necessary requirements: the full participation from both candidates, a guaranteed commitment of the millions of dollars it will cost to conduct the event and a detailed election plan that would enfranchise all Florida Democrats, including our military service members serving in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.
The Florida Democratic Party cannot consider any alternative that does not meet these requirements. Indeed, it is very possible that no satisfactory alternative plan will emerge, in which case Florida Democrats will remain committed to seating the delegates allocated by the January 29th primary.
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/03/dnc_encouraging_florida_and_mi.php
If I were Obama, just keep dragging it out until Hillary runs out of air. (no money, no superdelegates, and no delegates left. Then start buying everybody inside the party. She got no money and her supporters are not coughing up the dough. )
Dean’s full statement:
“We’re glad to hear that the Governors of Michigan and Florida are willing to lend their weight to help resolve this issue. As we’ve said all along, we strongly encourage the Michigan and Florida state parties to follow the rules, so today’s public overtures are good news. The rules, which were agreed to by the full DNC including representatives from Florida and Michigan over 18 months ago, allow for two options. First, either state can choose to resubmit a plan and run a party process to select delegates to the convention; second, they can wait until this summer and appeal to the Convention Credentials Committee, which determines and resolves any outstanding questions about the seating of delegates. We look forward to receiving their proposals should they decide to submit new delegate selection plans and will review those plans at that time. The Democratic Nominee will be determined in accordance with party rules, and out of respect for the presidential campaigns and the states that did not violate party rules, we are not going to change the rules in the middle of the game.
“Through all the speculation, we should also remember the overwhelming enthusiasm and turnout that we have already seen, and respect the voters of the ten states who have yet to have their say.
“As we head towards November, our nominee must have the united support of a strong Democratic Party that’s ready to fight and ready to beat John McCain. After seven years of Republican rule, I am confident that we will elect a Democratic president who will fight for America’s families in the White House. Now we must hear from the voters in twelve states and territories who have yet to make their voices heard.”
The only way that Hillary can win is by trying to cheat. Apparently she
thinks the rules don’t apply to her.
Jake Tapper
Clinton Campaign Chair Threatened to Strip Michigan of Delegates in 2004
April 26, 2008 5:33 PM
Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., has staked her path to the Democratic
nomination on the officially illegitimate contests held in Michigan and
Florida somehow being recognized, in opposition to Democratic National
Committee rules.
What’s so remarkable about this is that two of the Clinton campaign’s
most important strategists have in the past taken the stand that these
states should abide by the DNC’s instructions — even if that meant
stripping them of their delegates.
In direct contrast to the positions they hold now.
Senior strategist Harold Ickes as a DNC Rules Committee member in 2007
voted — along with the other 11 Clinton supporters on the 30-member
committee — to strip Michigan and Florida of their delegates as
punishment for disobeying the DNC primary calendar schedule.
Ickes now is a leader of the “count Michigan and Florida” rhetoric
coming from the Clinton campaign, despite his previous position.
Now comes this curious find, on Daily Kos.
It turns out that irrepressible Clinton campaign chairman Terry
McAuliffe once — when he was DNC chairman — threatened to strip
Michigan of delegates if that state’s Democrats carried out their
long-time goal of disobeying the DNC calendar.
In his lively book, “What A Party!: My Life Among Democrats: Presidents,
Candidates, Donors, Activists, Alligators and Other Wild Animals,”
McAuliffe tells the tale. If you’re an Amazon.com member, you can read
the passage for yourself on pages 324 and 325.
McAuliffe at the time had been pushing for early contests for South
Carolina and a Western state with a large Latino population, perhaps
Arizona or New Mexico.
“Our plan became very controversial,” McAuliffe writes. “Some people
thought any change was bad. Others thought we were not shaking things up
enough. Leading the charge for more radical alterations in the primary
calendar was Michigan Senator Carl Levin, who thought Iowa and New
Hampshire should not have exclusive rights on voting first and that it
was time for other states to have a turn. He had pushed unsuccessfully
for change before the 2000 elections and was back in full force this
election cycle. He made it very clear on the telephone that if I allowed
Iowa and New Hampshire to go first, then Michigan was going to act on
its own and put its primary first.”
McAuliffe invited Levin to make his argument before the full DNC meeting
on Jan. 19, 2002. Levin did, and his motion was defeated by a unanimous
vote.
“After the vote, the issue was settled in my mind — however, not in
Carl’s,” McAuliffe writes.
On Feb. 1, 2003, Levin, Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., and Dingell’s wife
Debbie (a DNC member and power broker unto herself) called McAuliffe.
“They told me they were going to hold the Michigan primary before New
Hampshire’s,” McAuliffe writes, “which would have led to complete chaos
since New Hampshire has a law stating that it must hold the first
primary and the DNC had already voted on this issue and settled it.
“‘If you do that, I will take away 50 percent of your delegates,’ I told
him.
“They thought I was bluffing. But it was my responsibility as chairman
to take action for the good of the party, and taking away half their
delegates was well within my authority…The whole primary calendar was
in danger of spinning out of control. The candidates kept calling me and
asking what was happening with the schedule, and I made it clear that I
was not going to let Michigan throw the entire process out of whack.
Finally I’d had enough and scheduled a meeting in Carl’s Senate office
for April 2 to settle this once and for all…
“Soon Carl and I were going at it.
“‘I’m going outside the primary window,’ he told me definitively.
“‘If I allow you to do that, the whole system collapses,’ I said. ‘We
will have chaos. I let you make your case to the DNC, and we voted
unanimously and you lost.’
“He kept insisting that they were going to move up Michigan on their
own, even though if they did that, they would lose half their delegates.
By that point Carl and I were leaning toward each other over a table in
the middle of the room, shouting and dropping the occasional expletive.
“‘You won’t deny us seats at the convention,’ he said.
“‘Carl, take it to the bank,’ I said. ‘They will not get a credential.
The closest they’ll get to Boston will be watching it on television. I
will not let you break this entire nominating process for one state. The
rules are the rules. If you want to call my bluff, Carl, you go ahead
and do it.’
“We glared at each other some more, but there was nothing much left to
say. I was holding all the cards and Levin knew it.”
Clinton herself said, in October 2007, “It’s clear, this election
they’re having is not going to count for anything.” She said she was
keeping her name on the ballot (unlike her competitors) just so when it
came time for the general election she could argue she had not ignored
the state.
It wasn’t until Clinton lost the Iowa caucuses in January that she acted
as if the Florida and Michigan contests had any meaning at all. As
Tallahassee political journalist S.V. Dáte recently wrote in Slate,
“Last summer and fall, when the DNC made these decisions, she had a lot
more clout. She exercised none of it.”
As for Ickes and McAuliffe — they have exercised a great deal of clout.
But it has been in the name of preserving order, even if that meant
stripping recalcitrant state Democrats of their delegates.
As McAuliffe said then — “the rules are the rules.”
Why? “For the good of the party,” he wrote (then).
Tejota May 15, 2008 at 9:40 pm
I’m still waiting to see the quote where she ‘agrees’ to disenfranchise FL and MI.
a little slow aren’t we tonite?
THEREFORE, I _______________, Democratic Candidate for President, pledge I shall not campaign or participate in any state which schedules a presidential election primary or caucus before Feb. 5, 2008, except for the states of Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina, as “campaigning” is defined by rules and regulations of the DNC.
(Hillary SIGNED that pledge.)
… (Hillary SIGNED that pledge.)
I already stipulated that.
Read it again. Slowly, so that you see all of the words this time.
It’s an agreement not to campaign. It says nothing about tossing out votes of MI and FL, and was in fact, written and signed BEFORE the DNC ever decided what to do about the 6 rulebreaking states. (or at least before they _announced_ what they were going to do).
oh, and I like this (from your article by Jake Tapper)
On Feb. 1, 2003… called McAuliffe.
Dude. 2003? Seriously? Wasn’t there a presidential election between then and now? Kerry something?
“They told me they were going to hold the Michigan primary before New
Hampshire’s,” McAuliffe writes,
…
“‘If you do that, I will take away 50 percent of your delegates,’ I told
him.
Damn… As if I needed more proof that the 100% penalty was a violation of the rules.
Obama Superdelegate Round-Up
Obama picked up 13 votes and Clinton loses one vote. He’s in cruise control at this point.
www.dailykos.com/story/2008/5/15/171556/605/202/516444
Still waiting squashed. —
By the way. Do I have the honor of dueling with a professional Obama blog spammer? I’ve heard rumers that you guys exist, but this is my first actual encounter.
Tejota May 15, 2008 at 10:28 pm
Read it again. Slowly, so that you see all of the words this time. It’s an agreement not to campaign. It says nothing about tossing out votes of MI and FL,
how about you read that carefully ….
pledge I shall not campaign or participate in any state which schedules a presidential election primary or caucus before Feb. 5, 2008.
by participating in non party sanctioned primary, Hillary UNDERMINED party’s authority to conduct future primary.
The basic problem with Hillary’s idea (aside being a liar) she basically will destroy party’s ability to arranged a primary that will test and weed out presidential candidate in the future.
Hillary acts like she gonna win the primary after super tuesday and don’t particularly care about this or that (including MI/FL). Now she is grandstanding about counting every votes. Except everybody is laughing because it’s transparent.
Jesus Christ, squashed, knock it the fuck off. Hasn’t Amanda already told you to cut out taking over the threads with your screeds? It is so unbelievably annoying to have to scroll through half a thread or more because of you. And I’m holding you personally responsible for the shitty state of my mouse-scroll finger.
Tejota May 15, 2008 at 10:45 pm
Do I have the honor of dueling with a professional Obama blog spammer?
nah, amateur. I consider it cheap entertainment. Are you Hillz paid poster like mydd and crew? lolz. No wonder Hillz is in deep financial hole.
PS. plenty more stuff online about Hillary and her lies.
Hekie May 15, 2008 at 10:47 pm
Hillz safe-spacer eh? can’t take reality. (Hey look you are not complaining about Tejota.)
chuckle. (whatta bunch of liars and cry babies)
(the problem with hanging around in Hillz blogs bunker, you only hear echo chamber. You can’t handle even the slightest argument. Your head can’t handle even the slightest reality. Hillz blog lies make you stupid)
apologies if I’m breaking the local rules Hekie. Have I been feeding trolls? - not my intent. really.
Hillary Clinton says Michigan Results are Fair! WTF?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=-deGy60y9fo
NBC REPORT: Hillary Clinton Seeking to Change Election Rules
www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wX99qUo3Ow
HILLARY Cry Baby CLINTON Flip Flops for Florida and Michigan
www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xHRqi8nsvI
Let us grant every conceivable benefit of the doubt to Senator Clinton. She is likely to win KY by 25 points, although Barack will contest that state more than WV. Let us suppose that her recent efforts in Oregon will help her so that she only loses there by 8 points. A lot of early voting has already taken place, but most of the vote is still available. She has learned from her previous mistakes. She is now appearing in South Dakota and Montana. She wins Puerto Rico by 25 points. Suppose 2208 becomes the magic number. Now what?
…
Senator Clinton would, then, have 2135 total delegates. Senator Obama would, then, have 2208 total delegates. The difference would be 73 total delegates. The number of SuperDelegates in this process would be 10.89 times as much as the difference in total delegates.
He would, then, have garnered 50.84 % of the total delegates. She would have garnered 49.16 % of the total delegates. Obama would have won 1.68 % more total delegates than Senator Clinton did. On a graph with a y axis which begins at zero, this margin would appear minimal.
…
Total Delegates Obama: 2208 Total Delegates
Total Delegates Clinton: 2135 Total Delegates
Total Delegates Winner: Obama 73 Total Delegates
Final note: Without moving to the 2208 number, her chances are virtually zero. It is unforeseeable. Her chances of winning with 2208 delegates would appear to be marginally better. As a ratio, the improvement odds might be infinitely better, but her actual odds are no better than 1 in 8, even if the 2208 number be adopted (and the scenario I described above takes place in the remaining contests - not including the last allocation of the remaining uncommitted superdelegates, of course). I wouldn’t think Hillary is getting good financial advice if she drops any more serious money into the kittle
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/5/16/0010/45504/1016/516647
See, this is where we keep coming back to the fact that you’re batshit insane. You think it’s rational to argue that Iowa and New Hampshire, which have officially had the first caucus and first primary for over 30 years and had them unofficially for even longer before that, were somehow breaking the rules by continuing to do what they’ve done for the past 30 years.
Again, please explain how it’s rational to claim that Iowa and New Hampshire “broke the rules” when the rules are set up for them to go first.
[Ezra Klein] This is a very, very, very big deal. This is the sort of decision that has the potential to tear the party apart. In an attempt to retain some control over the process and keep the various states from accelerating their primaries into last Summer, the Democratic National Committee warned Michigan and Florida that if they insisted on advancing their primary debates, their delegates wouldn’t be seated and the campaigns would be asked not to participate in their primaries. This was agreed to by all parties (save, of course, the states themselves).
With no one campaigning, Clinton, of course, won Michigan — she was the only Democrat to be on the ballot, as I understand it, which is testament to the other campaign’s beliefs that the contest wouldn’t count — and will likely win Florida. And because the race for delegates is likely to be close, she wants those wins to matter. So she’s fighting the DNC’s decision, and asking her delegates — those she’s already won, and those she will win — to overturn it at the convention. She’s doing so right before Florida, to intensify her good press in the state, where Obama is also on the ballot. And since this is a complicated, internal-party matter that sounds weird to those not versed in it (of course Michigan and Florida should count!), she’s adding a public challenge that, if the other Democrats deny, will make them seem anti-Michigan and Florida.
http://themoderatevoice.com/politics/bill-clinton/17332/hillary-clinton-changing-the-rules-on-florida-and-michigan-delegates/
Since When did Ezra Klein speak for the party?
Ezra: With no one campaigning, Clinton, of course, won Michigan — she was the only Democrat to be on the ballot, as I understand it,
To give you just a hint of how lazy and ill informed Ezra is. I present the list of names on the MI ballot. The fruit of a 10 second Google.
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Uncommitted
Dennis J. Kucinich
Christopher J. Dodd
Mike Gravel
Only Obama And Edwards removed their names, my apologies to Kucinich, I believe earlier said that he had removed his name also.
’scuse the typos - this time of night i type with a stylus on a touch screen
The AP also debunks her bunk popular vote routine:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5igrYLRrHG3P6lIbs2E7pSH0bxhvgD90MLJ0O0
Clinton has been arguing that she leads in the popular vote, but that’s only when both states are included and it is very slim — fewer than 5,000 votes out of 34 million cast.
Her accounting also doesn’t include some caucus states that favored Obama and where the popular vote wasn’t tallied. The measure of winning the nomination is not the popular vote but the delegate count, and Obama leads 1,898 to 1,718, with 2,026 needed for the nomination.
…
The plans before the committee will be more generous to Obama. The Michigan Democratic Party has proposed giving 69 of its 128 delegates to Clinton and 59 to Obama, an advantage of 10 delegates for Clinton.
A proposal from Florida would halve its 185 delegates. From that, Clinton would get 52.5 and Obama 33.5, a 19-delegate advantage for Clinton.
Post mortem
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=f7a4a380-c4a4-4f84-b653-f252e8569915
“There was not any plan in place from beginning to end on how to win the nomination. It was, ‘Win Iowa.’ There was not the experience level, and, frankly, the management ability, to create a whole plan to get to the magical delegate number. That to me is the number one thing. It’s starting from that point that every subsequent decision resulted. The decision to spend x amount in Iowa versus be prepared for February 5 and beyond. Or how much money to spend in South Carolina–where it was highly unlikely we were going to win–versus the decision not to fund certain other states. … It was not as simple as, ‘Oh, that’s a caucus state, we’re not going to play there.’ That suggests a more serious thought process. It suggests a meeting where we went through all that.”
“Harold Ickes’s encyclopedic understanding of the proportional delegate system was never operationalized into a field plan. The campaign inexplicably wrote off many states entirely, allowing Obama to create the lead of 100+ delegates that he has today. Most notably, we claimed the race would be over by February 5, but didn’t devote any resources to the smaller states that day and in the weeks that followed, allowing Obama to easily run up margins and delegate counts on the cheap–the delegate margin he will win by.”
Tejota May 16, 2008 at 2:42 am
Since When did Ezra Klein speak for the party?
so how much you get paid as hillz astro-turfer anyway? I mean you got to be the worst one I’ve seen so far. lol
just make sure you get cash in advance. I’ve heard Hillz book isn’t that balance.